1 Correction to: Synthese https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02698-w

The original article has been corrected. The author also wants to add the following addendum to the article.

Shortly after the present article was published online, I was informed of Salmon (2018). The fact that I missed this important contribution requires some corrections of what I said here: It is not true that Kit Fine’s theory of semantic relationism is “not clearly subject to the schmidentity argument,” as I suggested in the first paragraph of Sect. 7. Salmon (2018, pp. 217 ff) neatly executes a schmidentity argument against Fine’s semantic relationism, which I just vaguely imagined in n. 39 (Sect. 6). Since I take Salmon’s argument to be convincing, there cannot be any doubt that Fine’s semantic relationism is susceptible to the schmidentity argument, and the ratio I mentioned in n. 13 (Sect. 3) significantly shifts in favor of successful applications of schmidentity-like arguments in Salmon’s work. I wish to thank Nathan Salmon for favorably providing me with his recent article, which I find myself in broadest agreement with.