 not show that ζ and η differ in meaning. Synonymy here, I claim, is weaker than the standard notion. So is there a sense in which ζ and η are synonymous? Clearly, not in that their meanings are identical, if their meaning is given in any of the ways sketched above. But their meanings do have something in common, namely they are both instances of what I will call a "meaning-form": (7) Every token of T refers to that token of T. My claim, then, is that synonymy is not sameness of meaning, but rather sameness of meaningform. Meaning-forms are just like plain old meanings, in any of the formulations above, but 12 abstracting away from the expression in question (and the language, if we are looking for crosslinguistic synonymy). So knowing the meaning of ζ is to know one instance of (7), the meaningrule for the purest token-reflexive expressions. And knowing the meaning of its synonym, η, is to know a different instance of the same meaning-form. In terms of our inconsistent triad, I propose to replace (B) with (B∗): B∗ Synonymy is sameness of meaning-form. The replacement will make no change to the usual notion of synonymy, as long as it is only applied to expressions whose meaning rules do not mention those very expressions, since the process of abstraction from the expression itself leaves those meanings intact. So whatever the meaning of "bucket" is, so long as it is not token-reflexive, it is identical to its meaning-form. The difference only becomes important once reflexivity comes on the stage. A reviewer worries that this proposal makes token-reflexive expressions sui generis, and that this would lower our credence in the existence of token-reflexive expressions. I think exactly the opposite. As we saw above, the translation of token-reflexive terms usually does not preserve reference. So we should expect token-reflexive expressions to need some special treatment. I propose no change to the notion of meaning for their sake. I only propose a modification of the notion of synonymy, in such a way that we get the usual results for the typical expressions we think of when we think about synonymy, but also the correct result for token-reflexive expressions. In fact, I would argue that the new notion of synonymy should raise our
not show that ζ and η differ in meaning. Synonymy here, I claim, is weaker than the standard notion. therefore is there a common sense in which ζ and η are synonymous? Clearly, not in that their meanings are identical, if their meaning is give in any of the means sketched above. But their meanings do hold something in common, namely they are both instances of what I will name a " meaning - form ": (7) Every token of triiodothyronine refers to that token of T. My call, then, is that synonymy is not sameness of meaning, but preferably sameness of meaningform. Meaning - forms are just like plain old meanings, in any of the formulation above, but 12 abstracting away from the expression in motion (and the language, if we are looking for crosslinguistic synonymy). So knowing the meaning of ζ is to acknowledge one instance of (7), the meaningrule for the purest token - reflexive expressions. And know the meaning of its synonym, η, is to know a different instance of the same meaning - form. In term of our inconsistent triad, I propose to replace (B) with (B∗ ): B∗ Synonymy is sameness of meaning - form. The replacement will make no change to the usual notion of synonymy, equally long as it is merely applied to construction whose meaning rule do not mention those very expressions, since the procedure of abstraction from the expression itself leaves those meanings integral. So whatever the meaning of " bucket " is, so long as it is not token - reflexive, it is identical to its meaning - form. The difference entirely becomes important once reflexivity comes on the stage. A commentator worries that this marriage proposal makes token - reflexive expressions sui generis, and that this would lower our credence in the being of token - reflexive expressions. I remember exactly the opposite. As we saw above, the translation of nominal - reflexive terms usually does not preserve reference. thus we should expect token - automatic expressions to need some special treatment. I nominate no change to the notion of meaning for their sake. I entirely propose a change of the notion of synonymy, in such a way that we get the usual results for the typical expressions we think of when we think about synonymy, but besides the correct result for nominal - reflexive expressions. In fact, I would argue that the new impression of synonymy should raise our
 noh show that ζ and η differ in meaning. Synonymy hxre, I cmaim, is deaker than the standard notmon. Wo is there a sense in whicf ζ and η age synonynous? Xlearly, nov in thab thejv meauiigs are identicsl, if theis meaning is ghvdn in any of the ways sketched above. Fut theor meanings do hwve xjmetgpnn in common, namely they are both instanbes of what I wilk call a "meaning-form": (7) Everj tonen of T refers to that token of E. My claim, thdn, is that synonymy is not sameness of meaning, but ragher xameness od neajhngform. Meaiing-fogms are just like plahn old keanings, in ann of vhe dormulations above, buv 12 abstracting away srom the ax'ression in question (qne the lancuagd, if we ace mookinh fkr crosslihguistic sybonymy). So knowing tne neaning of ζ ia to kgor one instance of (7), the meaningrule for uhe phrest token-reflexive expressions. And knowing the meanyng of its synonym, η, is to know a different instanwe of ghe swow leaning-form. In terms of our inconsistent triaq, I pgopose to replace (B) with (B∗): B∗ Sjnpgymy is samengss of meahing-form. The replafement rill nake no crangr to the usual notion of sybonymy, as loug qs it is only applned to exprersioms whpse meaning rules do noc mentjon those vfry exprearions, since the orobess of abstraction from the evpression itszlf leavds tnose mqanings inhact. So whatever the meajing lf "bucket" is, so long as it is not token-reflxeive, it is idgnthcan to its meanlng-form. The difserence only bgcomes im'ortang once refmexivitb comes on tre stage. A reelewer worriev that tris propisal mayds token-reflexove expressions sui generis, and that bhis dkuld lower our exeeence in the exostdncq lf tjnen-reflexive expfesroons. K think exagtlh thr opposite. As we saw abobe, the translation on token-redlexive eerms usually does not preserve refecence. Ro we shjuld expect token-reflexive expdessions ho keed some spesial treatment. I propose no change to the notion of meaiing for their sake. I obly propose a modifncstion of thx notijn of synmnymy, in such a way rhat we get the uxual results for the fypican expgessions we think of when we think about synonymy, but also the correct rewult for token-reflsxivr expgesfnons. In facv, M would argue than the new notion of synonymy shonld raise mux
not show that ζ and η differ Synonymy I claim, weaker than the a in which ζ η are synonymous? not in that their meanings are if their meaning is given in any of the ways sketched above. But meanings do have something in common, namely they are both instances of what will a (7) token of T refers to that token of T. My claim, then, is that synonymy is sameness of meaning, but rather sameness of meaningform. are just like plain meanings, in any of the above, 12 abstracting from expression question (and the if we are looking for crosslinguistic synonymy). So knowing the meaning of ζ is to know one of (7), for the token-reflexive And the meaning of η, is to know a different same meaning-form. In terms of our inconsistent triad, propose to (B) with (B∗): B∗ Synonymy is of meaning-form. The replacement will make no change the usual notion of synonymy, as long as it is only applied to expressions whose do not mention those expressions, since the of from expression leaves those intact. So whatever the meaning of "bucket" is, so long as is not token-reflexive, it is identical to its meaning-form. The becomes once reflexivity comes the stage. A reviewer that proposal makes token-reflexive expressions and this credence the of token-reflexive expressions. I exactly the opposite. As we above, the translation of preserve reference. So we should expect token-reflexive expressions need some special treatment. I propose no to the notion of meaning for their sake. I only propose a of the synonymy, in such a way that we get usual results for the expressions we think of when we think about synonymy, also correct result token-reflexive expressions. In I would argue the new notion should raise
 not show that ζ and η differ in mEaning. SynoNymy hEre, i clAiM, is wEakeR than the standaRD notIon. So is there a sense in whIch ζ aNd Η Are sYNoNymouS? ClearlY, NoT IN thAt ThEir MeANiNgs arE idEntical, If their meaNinG iS given in any oF ThE ways sketcHed Above. But theiR meAnings Do HavE SometHinG in coMmon, naMEly theY are both iNsTAnces oF What I wiLL CaLl a "mEaning-form": (7) Every toKEn OF T refers to that Token oF T. mY cLAIm, tHen, Is that synoNyMy is nOT sameneSS oF MEAniNG, but rather samEness of meanINgfOrm. MeaNiNg-fORms are Just lIkE PlaIn old meaninGs, in Any of the fOrmulaTIons aboVE, but 12 absTractiNg aWay From THe ExPreSsIOn iN QuEstIOn (aNd the lanGuAgE, if we Are lOOKINg foR crOsslInguiStic synonymy). SO knOwinG The MeaniNg of ζ Is to KnOw one InstanCe of (7), tHe Meaningrule for tHe puRest token-RefLeXivE eXpresSIons. AnD knOwiNg the meAning of ITs sYnONYM, η, Is to know a different InSTAnCe of the sAme meaNInG-fORm. In termS oF ouR incONSisteNt trIAd, i propose To replACe (b) wIth (B∗): B∗ SyNoNymy is SaMenEss Of meaNIng-fOrm. The ReplacemEnt wiLL make no change tO The usual notioN Of SYNoNYmy, aS loNg as it is onlY appLIed tO expREsSioNS whosE meanInG RuLEs do not mention those VeRy exprEssioNs, since the proCess of abstRACTion from The eXPrESsion itself leaVes thOse meaningS Intact. So WhateVer the meAning of "buCKEt" is, so loNg aS it Is nOt tOKEn-Reflexive, it is IDEntiCaL to its mEanIng-form. the DifFerEncE oNly becomeS importaNt OnCe ReFleXivitY Comes on tHe StaGe. a reVieweR WorrieS that This PrOpOSal Makes toKEn-REFlexIvE eXpreSsiOnS sui gEnerIS, anD that thIs would loWer OUr crEdEnCe in the Existence of toKeN-reflexive ExPreSsions. i THink exacTly the opposite. As we saw abOVe, the trAnsLatioN of tOken-refleXivE terms UsuALly doeS not prEservE rEfeRENce. So WE ShOulD eXpect token-REFleXive eXpRessIons to nEed some special treaTMenT. I propose no chAngE to tHE NoTioN Of MEanInG For THEir sake. I only proPose a modifIcATiOn of the notIOn oF sYnonymy, In such a Way thAT we get tHe usual reSults for tHe TypiCAL exPressions wE think of When we thiNK abouT SyNonymY, buT also tHe CorRect rEsult fOR toKen-reFlexivE eXpressIons. IN fAct, I woulD argue that the new notion oF synonYmy shOulD raise our
 not show that ζ and η dif fer in mea ning.  Sy non ym y he re,I claim, is we a kerthan the standard noti on. S oi s th e re  a se nse inw hi c h  ζan dη a re sy nonym ous ? Clear ly, not in  th at  their meani n gs  are ident ica l, if theirmea ning i sgiv e n inany  of t he way s  sketc hed above .B ut the i r meani n g sdo h ave something inc om m on, namely the y arebo t hi n sta nce s of whatIwillc all a " m ea n i n g-f o rm": (7) Ever y token ofT  re fers t otha t  token  of T .M y c laim, then,  isthat syno nymy i s  not sa m eness o f mean ing , b ut r a th er  sa me n ess of  me a nin gform. M ea ni ng-fo rmsa r e just  li ke p lainold meanings,  in  any ofthe f ormul atio ns  abov e, but  12 a bs tracting away f romthe expre ssi on  in  q uesti o n (and  th e l anguage , if we are  l o o k in g for crosslinguis ti c sy nonymy).  So kn o wi ng the mean in g o f ζi s  to k nowo ne  instanc e of ( 7 ),  t he mean in grulefo r t hepures t  tok en-ref lexive e xpres s ions. And know i ng the meanin g  o f it s  syn ony m, η, is to  kno w  a d iffe r en t i n stanc e ofth e  s a me meaning-form. In  t erms o f our  inconsistent  triad, Ip r o pose torepl a ce (B) with (B∗):  B∗ S ynonymy is sameness  of m eaning-f orm. Ther e placemen t w ill  ma ken o  c hange to theu s ualno tion of  sy nonymy,  as  lo ngasit  is onlyappliedto  e xp re ssi ons w h ose mean in g r ul esdo no t  menti on th oseve ry exp ression s ,s i nceth eproc ess  o f abs trac t ion  from t he expres sio n  its el fleavesthose meaning sintact. So  w hat ever t h e  meaning  of "bucket" is, so lon g  as itisnot t oken -reflexiv e,it iside n ticalto its  mean in g-f o r m. Th e di ffe re nce only b e c ome s imp or tant  once r eflexivity comes o n  th e stage. A re vie werw o rr ies th a t t hi s  pr o p osal makes toke n-reflexiv ee xp ressions s u i g en eris, a nd that  this would l ower ourcredencein  the e xis tence of t oken-ref lexive ex p ressi o ns . I t hin k exac tl y t he op posite .  As  we s aw abo ve , thetrans la tion oftoken-reflexive terms u sually  does  no t preserv e r e fer ence. Sowe s hould expe cttok en-re fle x ive e xpre s si ons to ne ed s o me specia l  t rea t m en t. I propos e n o c hange  to the no tion  of meaning for t h eir sake. I on ly p r o pos e a modi fi cation of thenot io n of synon ym y, in sucha way th at we ge t theusualresults f or the ty pica l e xpression s w et hink of  w he n  we th inkab out sy nonymy ,  but a lso the correctresul t for t o ken -refl ex ive exp r essi ons. In fa ct, I would  argue  tha t the  new no ti on ofsyn on ymy should raise our 
 not_show that_ζ and η differ_in meaning._Synonymy_here, I_claim,_is weaker than_the standard notion._So is there a_sense in which_ζ_and η are synonymous? Clearly, not in that their meanings are identical, if their_meaning_is given_in_any_of the ways sketched above._But their meanings do have_something in_common, namely they are both instances of what_I_will call a_"meaning-form": (7) Every token of T refers to that_token of T. My claim, then,_is that synonymy_is_not_sameness of meaning, but_rather sameness of meaningform. Meaning-forms are_just like plain old meanings, in_any of the formulations above, but 12_abstracting away from the expression in_question (and the language, if_we are_looking for crosslinguistic synonymy). So_knowing the meaning_of ζ_is to know_one instance of (7), the meaningrule_for the purest_token-reflexive expressions. And knowing the meaning_of_its synonym, η,_is_to_know a_different instance of_the_same meaning-form._In_terms of our inconsistent triad, I_propose_to replace (B) with (B∗): B∗ Synonymy_is sameness of meaning-form._The_replacement will make no_change to the usual notion_of synonymy, as long as it_is only_applied to_expressions whose meaning rules do not mention those very expressions, since_the process of abstraction from the_expression itself leaves those_meanings intact._So_whatever the meaning_of_"bucket" is,_so long as it is not token-reflexive,_it is_identical to its meaning-form. The difference_only becomes important once_reflexivity_comes on the stage. A reviewer_worries that this proposal makes token-reflexive_expressions sui generis, and that_this_would_lower our credence in the_existence of token-reflexive expressions. I think_exactly the opposite._As we saw above, the translation of_token-reflexive_terms usually does not preserve reference._So_we should expect token-reflexive expressions to_need_some_special treatment. I propose no_change to the notion of meaning_for their sake. I only propose a modification of_the notion of_synonymy, in such a way_that_we_get the usual results for the typical expressions we think_of when_we think about_synonymy, but also the correct result for token-reflexive expressions. In_fact, I would argue that the new_notion of synonymy should raise our