Field's claim that we have a notion of consistency which is neither model-theoretic nor proof-theoretic but primitive, is examined and criticized. His argument is compared to similar examinations by Kreisel and Etchemendy, and Etchemendy's distinction between interpretational and representational semantics is employed to reveal the flaw in Field's argument.
"Field on the Notion of Consistency." Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 37 (4) 625 - 630, Fall 1996. https://doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1040046146