 a bit more complicated. Suppose that "I" and "je" are synonymous. Then, one might think, their meanings, which, we are assuming, are identical, determine the same referent relative to each context. If "I" and "je" are token-reflexive, as I have been assuming, this picture does not work, since, by hypothesis, there are contexts in which one is tokened and the other is not, so relative to some contexts, one gets a referent, and the other does not. As always, we have several options. One would be to say that this shows that "I" and "je" are not token reflexive. In this paper, I am assuming this option away. The second option would be to say that this shows that token reflexives are never synonymous. The third option, to be discussed in §6.2, would have us modify the meanings of "I" and "je", so that they do come out synonymous 11 and coreferential relative to all tokens. The fourth option, which I find more interesting, is to stop for a moment and rethink what follows from claiming that two expressions are synonymous. This allows us to think about expressions in an area of the language that was not under focus when talk of synonymy as entailing coreference was being converted into tradition. If I am right about the genealogy of our notion of synonymy, the proper way to think about its application to tokenreflexivity is not to assume that everything will be as we expect it to be, but rather to be open to changing what needs changing when one moves from one kind of expression to another. But before we do that, let me mention a distinct problem for my view, one that I find even more unsettling (before we think about it the right way, of course). The starkest contrast between buckets and pails on the one hand, and token-reflexives on the other, is that all the tokens of this sentence are true: (5) ζ 6= η This looks like a problem for anyone claiming that ζ and η are synonyms. Then again, the following sentence also has only true tokens: (6) ζ 6= ζ (6) contains just one expression, and the truth of all its tokens does not show that ζ is ambiguous. Rather, it just highlights the token-reflexivity of that expression. Similarly, the guaranteed truth of all tokens of (5) does
a bit more complicated. Suppose that " I " and " je " are synonymous. Then, one might think, their meanings, which, we are assume, are identical, settle the same referent relative to each context. If " I " and " je " are token - reflexive, as I have been assume, this picture does not work, since, by guess, there are contexts in which one is tokened and the other is not, thus relative to some contexts, one get a referent, and the other does not. As constantly, we accept several options. One would be to say that this shows that " I " and " je " are not token reflexive. In this composition, I am assuming this option away. The second choice would be to say that this shows that nominal reflexives are never synonymous. The third choice, to be discussed in § 6.2, would have us modify the meanings of " I " and " je ", so that they do come out synonymous 11 and coreferential relative to all tokens. The fourth choice, which I find more interesting, is to stop for a moment and rethink what follows from claiming that two expressions are synonymous. This admit us to think about expressions in an area of the language that was not under focus when talk of synonymy as entailing coreference was being converted into tradition. If I am right about the genealogy of our impression of synonymy, the proper manner to think about its lotion to tokenreflexivity is not to wear that everything will be as we have a bun in the oven it to be, but rather to be open to exchange what needs changing when one moves from one kind of expression to another. But before we serve that, let me mention a distinct problem for my view, one that I find even more unsettling (before we intend about it the right way, of course). The starkest line between buckets and pail on the one bridge player, and token - reflexives on the other, is that all the tokens of this conviction are true: (5) ζ 6= η This looks like a problem for anyone claim that ζ and η are synonyms. Then again, the following sentence also has alone true token: (6) ζ 6= ζ (6) contains just one saying, and the truth of all its token does not show that ζ is equivocal. Rather, it just foreground the token - reflexivity of that expression. Similarly, the guarantee truth of all keepsake of (5) does
 a hit more complicated. Supkose that "I" and "jg" qre syionymoua. Then, ove might think, their meaningd, qhich, we are assuming, are iaentical, feterminw tht same referent rxmative bj eadm conceet. If "I" and "je" sre token-raflexive, as I vaxe been assuming, this picture does noe work, xijce, by hypothefis, uhewe adv gontexts in which one is tokened and tht other is not, so telative to some contexts, lne hets a referent, anf the other doef not. As alwahs, we have several optjons. One would be to say that tfis skows that "I" abd "ug" are not tojen rvflexive. In tmps papes, I am sssuming this pptmon qway. The second optioi would be to say thwt this svocs that token reflexicew are nevar shbonhmohs. Tge thigd kption, to ge discussee in §6.2, would have us mjeify the meanjngs os "Y" and "je", so that they do come out synonjmoua 11 and coreferential reoative to all tokens. Jhe fourth option, which I find more interesting, is to stop xor a oomtnb xbd rethink what follows from claiming that two qsptexsions are synjnymous. Thix wlkjws us to thivk abobf sxpressions in an wrea of the oanguage uhat eas not under focus when taok of synonyit as entailing corzference was beimg comverted into tradition. Nf I aj right abokt the gehdalogy of our nogiok ox synonymy, the proper way eo think ebout its apolicstion eo tokenrevlexiyhty is not to assule thct evarything wlll be as we expect it to be, buv rather to bg o[en to chanying wmat needs changyng when one mpves frjm ond kind of vxpressioi to another. But before wa do that, let me mentyon q diwtinct ofoblem for my fiew, one nhct I find even more unsettllng (bgfkre we think abiut it the right wsy, uf solrsx). The vtarkest condrasg bdyween buckets anb oailx on the one hand, ang toien-reflexives on tne other, iw that ajl the tokens of this sentence wre tcue: (5) ζ 6= η Thix ljoks like a problem for anyone claiming thwt ζ and η are syninyms. Then ayain, the following sentence also has onlb true tokens: (6) ζ 6= ζ (6) conjains just one expresxlon, and the vruth jf all itv tokens does not shiw that ζ is ambigmous. Rather, it just hifhlighds thf token-reflexivity of that expression. Similarly, the guaranteed truth of aol tokxnf of (5) does
a bit more complicated. Suppose that "I" are Then, one think, their meanings, identical, the same referent to each context. "I" and "je" are token-reflexive, as have been assuming, this picture does not work, since, by hypothesis, there are in which one is tokened and the other is not, so relative to contexts, gets referent, the other does not. As always, we have several options. One would be to say that shows that "I" and "je" are not token In this paper, I assuming this option away. The option be to that shows token reflexives are synonymous. The third option, to be discussed in §6.2, would have us modify the meanings of "I" "je", so do come synonymous and relative to all fourth option, which I find more stop for a moment and rethink what follows claiming that expressions are synonymous. This allows us think about expressions in an area of the that was not under focus when talk of synonymy as entailing coreference was being converted If I am right the genealogy of notion synonymy, proper to think its application to tokenreflexivity is not to assume that everything will as we expect it to be, but rather to be changing needs changing when moves from one kind expression another. But before we let mention for view, that I find even unsettling (before we think about the right way, of buckets and pails on the one hand, and on the other, is that all the of this sentence are true: (5) ζ 6= η This looks like problem for that ζ and η are synonyms. Then again, following sentence also has true tokens: (6) ζ 6= ζ (6) contains just expression, the truth all its tokens not show that is ambiguous. Rather, highlights the of expression. truth of all tokens of (5)
 a bit more complicated. SupposE that "I" and "jE" are sYnoNymOuS. TheN, one Might think, theiR MeanIngs, which, we are assuming, Are idEnTIcal, DEtErminE the samE ReFERenT rElAtiVe TO eAch coNteXt. If "I" anD "je" are tokeN-reFlExive, as I have BEeN assuming, tHis Picture does nOt wOrk, sinCe, By hYPotheSis, There Are conTExts in Which one iS tOKened aND the othER Is Not, sO relative to some coNTeXTs, one gets a refeRent, anD tHE oTHEr dOes Not. As alwayS, wE have SEveral oPTiONS. one WOuld be to say thAt this shows THat "i" and "je" ArE noT Token rEflexIvE. in tHis paper, I am AssuMing this oPtion aWAy. The seCOnd optiOn woulD be To sAy thAT tHiS shOwS ThaT ToKen REflExives arE nEvEr synOnymOUS. tHe thIrd OptiOn, to bE discussed in §6.2, wOulD havE Us mOdify The meAninGs Of "I" anD "je", so tHat thEy Do come out synonyMous 11 And corefeRenTiAl rElAtive TO all toKenS. ThE fourth Option, wHIch i fIND MoRe interesting, is to sToP FOr A moment aNd rethINk WhAT follows FrOm cLaimING that Two eXPrEssions aRe synoNYmOuS. This alLoWs us to ThInk AboUt expREssiOns in aN area of tHe lanGUage that was not UNder focus when TAlK OF sYNonyMy aS entailing cOrefERencE was BEiNg cONvertEd intO tRAdITion. If I am right about ThE geneaLogy oF our notion of sYnonymy, the PROPer way to ThinK AbOUt its applicatiOn to tOkenreflexIVity is noT to asSume that EverythinG WIll be as wE exPecT it To bE, BUt Rather to be opeN TO chaNgIng what NeeDs changIng WheN onE moVeS from one kInd of expReSsIoN tO anOther. bUt before We Do tHaT, leT me meNTion a dIstinCt prObLeM For My view, oNE tHAT I fiNd EvEn moRe uNsEttliNg (beFOre We think About it thE riGHt waY, oF cOurse). ThE starkest contRaSt between bUcKetS and paILS on the onE hand, and token-reflexives ON the othEr, iS that All tHe tokens oF thIs sentEncE Are truE: (5) ζ 6= η ThiS lookS lIke A PRobleM FOr AnyOnE claiming tHAT ζ aNd η arE sYnonYms. Then Again, the following sENteNce also has onlY trUe toKENs: (6) Ζ 6= ζ (6) cONtAIns JuST onE EXpression, and the Truth of all ItS ToKens does noT ShoW tHat ζ is aMbiguouS. RathER, it just HighlightS the token-ReFlexIVIty Of that exprEssion. SiMilarly, thE GuaraNTeEd truTh oF all toKeNs oF (5) does
 a bit more complicated. S uppose tha t "I"  an d " je " ar e sy nonymous. Then ,  one  might think, their me aning s, whic h ,we ar e assum i ng , are  i de nti ca l ,deter min e the s ame refere ntre lative to ea c hcontext. I f " I" and "je"are  token -r efl e xive,  as  I ha ve bee n  assum ing, this  p i ctured oes not w or k, s ince, by hypothes i s, there are cont exts i nw hi c h  on e i s tokenedan d the other i s  n o t ,  so relative to s ome context s , o ne get sa r e ferent , and  t h e o ther does n ot.As always , we h a ve seve r al opti ons. O newou ld b e  t osay  t h att hi s s h ows  that "I "an d "je " ar e n o t to ken  ref lexiv e. In this pa per , Ia m a ssumi ng th is o pt ion a way. T he se co nd option would  beto say th atth issh ows t h at tok enref lexives  are ne v ersy n o n ym ous. The third opt io n ,  t o be dis cussed in  § 6 .2, woul dhav e us m odify  the me anings o f "I"a nd  " je", so  t hat th ey  do  co me ou t  syn onymou s 11 and  core f erential relat i ve to all tok e ns . Th e  fou rth  option, wh ichI  fin d mo r eint e resti ng, i st os top for a moment an drethin k wha t follows fro m claiming t h at two e xpre s si o ns are synonym ous.This allow s  us to t hinkabout ex pressions i n an are a o f t helan g u ag e that was no t unde rfocus w hen  talk o f s yno nym y a sentailing  corefer en ce  w as  be ing c o nvertedin totr adi tion. If I a m rig ht a bo ut the  geneal o gy o f ou rno tion  of  s ynony my,t heproperway to th ink abou tit s appli cation to tok en reflexivit yisnot to a ssume th at everything will be a s  we exp ect  it t o be , but rat her  to be  op e n to c hangin g wha tnee d s  chan g i ng  wh en  one moves f rom  oneki nd o f expre ssion to another.B utbefore we dotha t, l e t  m e m e nt i onad ist i n ct problem formy view, o ne th at I finde ven  m ore uns ettling  (bef o re we t hink abou t it theri ghtw a y,of course) . The st arkest co n trast be tween  bu cketsan d p ailson the one  hand , andto ken-re flexi ve s on the  other, is that all the  token s ofthi s sentenc e a r e t rue: (5)ζ 6=  η This lo oks  li ke apro b lem f or a n yo nec laimi ng t h at ζ andη  a res y no nyms. Thena g a in,  thefol l owingsent ence also has onl y  true tokens:(6)ζ 6=ζ ( 6 ) co nt ains just oneexp re s s ion, and  t he truth of  all its  t o kensdoes n ot sho w thatζ is ambigu ous.  Ra ther, itjus th ighligh ts  t h e toke n-re fl exivit y of t h at e x p ression. Similar ly, t h e  guar a nte ed tr ut h of al l  tok ens of (5)  does
 a_bit more_complicated. Suppose that "I"_and "je"_are_synonymous. Then,_one_might think, their_meanings, which, we_are assuming, are identical,_determine the same_referent_relative to each context. If "I" and "je" are token-reflexive, as I have been_assuming,_this picture_does_not_work, since, by hypothesis, there_are contexts in which one_is tokened_and the other is not, so relative to_some_contexts, one gets_a referent, and the other does not. As always,_we have several options. One would_be to say_that_this_shows that "I" and_"je" are not token reflexive. In_this paper, I am assuming this_option away. The second option would be_to say that this shows that_token reflexives are never synonymous._The third_option, to be discussed in_§6.2, would have_us modify_the meanings of_"I" and "je", so that they_do come out_synonymous 11 and coreferential relative to_all_tokens. The fourth_option,_which_I find_more interesting, is_to_stop for_a_moment and rethink what follows from_claiming_that two expressions are synonymous. This allows_us to think about_expressions_in an area of_the language that was not_under focus when talk of synonymy_as entailing_coreference was_being converted into tradition. If I am right about the genealogy_of our notion of synonymy, the_proper way to think_about its_application_to tokenreflexivity is_not_to assume_that everything will be as we expect_it to_be, but rather to be open_to changing what needs_changing_when one moves from one kind_of expression to another. But before_we do that, let me_mention_a_distinct problem for my view,_one that I find even more_unsettling (before we_think about it the right way, of_course)._The starkest contrast between buckets and_pails_on the one hand, and token-reflexives_on_the_other, is that all the_tokens of this sentence are true:_(5) ζ 6= η This looks like a problem_for anyone claiming_that ζ and η are_synonyms._Then_again, the following sentence also has only true tokens: (6)_ζ 6=_ζ (6) contains_just one expression, and the truth of all its tokens_does not show that ζ is ambiguous._Rather, it just highlights the token-reflexivity of that expression. Similarly, the_guaranteed truth of all tokens of (5) does