The main topic of this work is meaning – modality relationship as regarded by R. Carnap and S. A. Kripke, the two leading philosophers known for their great contributions to this issue. Meaning/naming belongs to semantic and philosophy of language, and modality to metaphysics since it is about the essential properties (in the case of necessity, of course) of things. This work represents a comprehensive analysis of both systems, and the aim is not just to define the basic concepts but to investigate how they are connected to each other and which of them can serve as ground for defining the others. Carnap’s system represents a study in semantics and modal logic, where the method of semantic analysis is developed and has to serve as a ground for further analysis of modality, while Kripke’s system is a study of modal logic and corresponding semantic concepts, where basic modal concepts are defined, and aimed to define basic semantic relation (naming relation). The two systems represent the two possible ways of analysis, presenting fundamental and other relevant theses of both semantics and modal theories. By determining the fundamental theses, questions and answers it is possible to determine the particular frameworks of each (Carnap and Kripke’s) account. The work includes the final comparative analysis which explains Carnap and Kripke’s semantics from the point of view of classical and neoclassical theories, stressing their main features, proceeding through the three main points: meaning and modality, name relation, and the belief sentences. The results of analysis are taken as a base for determining and distinguishing the particular frameworks already included in both Carnap and Kripke’s semantics and modal theories. Carnap’s framework is extension-intension framework, and that of Kripke is possible-worlds framework, which characterize their different approach to the same issue: meaning and modality. The main conclusion is offered with respect to the question which account is more acceptable and more adequate to provide the answers to the fundamental questions they asked.

Glavna tema ovog rada je odnos izmedju znacenja i modalnosti razmatran od strane Rudolfa Karnapa i Saula Arona Kripkea, dva vodeca filozofa poznata po svom izuzetnom doprinosu ovoj problematici. Znacenje/imenovanje pripada semantici i filozofiji jezika, dok modalnost pripada metafizici buduci se odnosi na esencijalna svojstva (u slucaju nuznosti, naravno) stvari. Rad predstavlja opseznu analizu oba sistema, i glavni cilj nije samo da se da definicija osnovnih pojmova vec da se ispita kako su pojmovi povezani jedan sa drugim, i koji od njih predstavlja osnov za definisanje ostalih pojmova. Karnapov sistem predstavlja studiju o semantici i modalnoj logici gdje je dat metod semanticke analize u svrhu dalje analize modalnosti, dok je Kripkeov sistem studija modalne logike i korespondentnih semantickih pojmova gdje su temeljni modalni pojmovi definisani u svrhu definisanja osnovne semanitcke relacije (relacije imenovanja). Dva sistema predstavljaju dva moguca nacina analize, predstavljajuci fundamentalne i druge relevantne teze i semantickih i modalnih teorija. Utvrdjivanjem fundamentalnih teza, pitanja i odgovora moguce je odrediti posebne matrice ili okvire svakog od sistema (i Karnapovog i Kripkeovog). Rad ukljucuje i zakljucnu komparativnu analizu koja zapravo pruza objasnjenje Karnapove i Kripkeove semantike sa stajalista klasicnih i neoklasicnih teorija potencirajuci njihova glavna obiljezlja kroz tri glavne tacke: modalnost i znacenje, relaciju imenovanja i recenice vjerovanja. Rezultati analize uzeti su kao osnova da utvrdjivanje i razlikovanje posebnih matrica ili okvira koji su vec sadrzani i u Karnapovoj i u Kripkeovoj semantici i njihovim modalnim teorijama. Karnapova matrica je matrica ekstenzije i intenzije, a Kripkeova matrica mogucih sjvetova, koje obiljezavaju njihov drugaciji pristup istom problemu: znacenju i modalnosti. Glavni zakljucak je dat s obzirom na pitanje koji je pristup ili matrica prihvatljivija i adekvatnija u davanju odgovora na fundamentalna pitanja koja oba autora postavljaju.