Semanticists and philosophers of fiction that formulate analyses of
contensive statements of the form ‘In/According to *s*, ϕ’, usually treat
the ‘In *s*’-operator (**In**) and the ‘According to *s*’-operator (**Acc**) on a
par. I argue that there are in fact three clusters of linguistic
observations that suggest that the **In** and **Acc** operators require separate
semantic analyses. These observations concern (I) preferences for **In** or
**Acc** in contensive statements about fictional or non-fictional media, (II)
preferences for **In** or **Acc** in contensive statements about implicit or
explicit content and (III) tense use preferences in contensive statements
with **In** and **Acc**. To account for these three clusters of observations I
propose to, firstly, adopt the Lewisian (1978) possible world analysis for
contensive statements with **In**. Roughly: ‘**In** *s*, ϕ’ is true iff in the
worlds compatible with *s*, ϕ. Secondly, I propose to analyze contensive
statements with **Acc** as indirect speech reports. Roughly: ‘**Acc** *s*, ϕ’
is true iff *s* asserts that ϕ.