 that its tokens refer to themselves, French+ is just French with the restriction that that expression is to be used only that way. I would translate one expression with the other, unless some reason would compel me to do otherwise. The second argument is this: having learned one of the expressions, you only need to be told that the other is just like it, mutatis mutandis. In other words, a speaker of a language that contained ζ, wanting to learn how to say ζ in the new language, would just need to be told that they should use (tokens of) η. This argument is somewhat independent of claims about translation, in that even if one were unsure about translation practices, which might incorporate complicated norms that may have to do with considerations independent of meanings, one could still be moved by considerations about learning a new language. 10 Admittedly, synonymy in this realm has odd features. For instance, synonymy does not entail coreference. This is troubling, since if one could show that there is a bucket which is not a pail, one would thereby be naturally taken to have shown that "bucket" and "pail" are not synonyms. There is a choice to be made here. One option is to insist that coreference is a sine qua non of synonymy. Then we easily get the conclusion that there is no synonymy for expressions like ζ. The second option is to rethink this condition in light of thinking about sameness of meaning in the token-referential area. If this were merely a debate about what gets to be called "synonymy", I see no reason to prefer one option over the other, except possibly for the weight of tradition (but tradition for labels is a fragile thing, and all changes of tradition start out being anti-tradition). I do not think, though, that this is just a dispute about labels. So let me flesh out the objection here. We could start by focusing on "bucket" and "pail". Suppose that they do have the same meaning. One might say that it is a consequence of their having the same meaning that they are (necessarily, analytically) coreferential. Perhaps one thinks this is because meaning determines reference, and if two expressions have the same meaning, then they are guaranteed to have the same referent. But for context sensitive expressions, meaning does not determine reference on its own; rather, reference is determined relative to a context. So now the original picture needs to be
that its tokens refer to themselves, French+ is just French with the restriction that that formula is to be use only that way. I would translate one formulation with the other, unless some reason would compel me to practice differently. The second argument is this: having learned one of the expressions, you only need to be order that the other is just like it, mutatis mutandis. In early words, a speaker of a language that contained ζ, wanting to learn how to say ζ in the fresh language, would just need to be order that they should use (tokens of) η. This argument is somewhat autonomous of claims about transformation, in that even if one were unsure about translation practices, which might incorporate complicated average that may have to do with considerations independent of meanings, one could however be moved by considerations about learning a new language. 10 Admittedly, synonymy in this realm has odd features. For case, synonymy does not entail coreference. This is troubling, since if one could usher that there is a bucket which is not a pail, one would thereby be naturally taken to have shown that " bucket " and " bucket " are not synonyms. There constitute a choice to be made here. One choice is to insist that coreference is a sine qua non of synonymy. Then we easily get the conclusion that there is no synonymy for expressions like ζ. The second option is to rethink this condition in light of thinking about sameness of meaning in the token - referential sphere. If this were merely a debate about what contract to be called " synonymy ", I see no reason to prefer one option over the early, except possibly for the weight of tradition (but tradition for labels is a fragile thing, and all changes of tradition start out being anti - custom). I do not think, though, that this is just a dispute about labels. So let me flesh out the expostulation here. We could start by concentrate on " bucket " and " pail ". think that they do have the like meaning. One might say that it is a consequence of their having the same meaning that they are (inevitably, analytically) coreferential. Perhaps one thinks this is because meaning determines reference, and if two expressions have the same meaning, then they are guaranteed to have the same referent. But for context sensitive expressions, meaning does not specify reference on its own; rather, mention is determined relative to a context. So now the original picture needs to be
 thwt its tokens refer to tmemselves, French+ is jusv Frencg with tfe restriction that that expcessuon iw to be used only that way. I wolld transoate ine expression witm the lthex, nnless some reaxon would wompel me to dm utkerwise. The second argument is this: raving kewrned one of tre eqpwessjons, you only need to be told that the otier is just likr it, mutatis mutandis. In ohher words, a speaker ov a languagg thwr contained ζ, wanting to learn how jo say ζ in the new language, woula jusc need to bg fopg that they shoujd use (tokens of) η. Thhs argukent is somewhst mndependent of claims abont translation, in thwt even ix kne were unsure avoyt trdnsldtiov prxctjcxs, shich ligit incorporzte complicqted norms that may hwnr to do with consiqewations independent of meanings, one cound atill be moved by consieerations about learnlng a new language. 10 Admittedly, synonymy in this realm has mdd fxagurts. For kbshance, synonymy does not entail coreference. Thya os troubling, singe if one could shpw tnwt there is a buckec wgich is not a pail, one woold thwreby be gatutally taken to have shown tyat "bucket" aud "pail" are not synonvms. There is a cnoice to be made here. One opcion ia to insist that corswerence is a sind qla nmn of synonymy. Then we easyly get tie couclusion thaj there is no synlnymy for expressions line ζ. Tke sewond optioj is to rethink this condition mi light of thonninc about famencss of meaning yn the token-reyerentiaj arex. If this sere mecely a debatq about what cgts to be calned "synogymy", I swe no rdxson to prefer one option over thw other, except posxibug for the weighc if tradition (buy tfadytpon fjs labels is d frxgiur thivg, and all ghavges of tradition start mut geing anti-traditiom). L do not jhink, thotgh, that this is just a dispute abouv labeus. So lej me flesh out the objection hede. We coupd ftart by foctsinn on "bucket" anb "pail". Suppose that they do have the samx meaning. One might sai that it is a conseqoenge of their iaving the same meaning that they aee (necessarily, anslytically) coreferentjal. Peshaps one thinks this is because meaning determines reference, and if two exprewsions have the saje mraninc, cheu they wre jueranteed to have nhe same referent. But for contexv sensitiva zxpressions, meaning does not cegermine refergnce on its own; rather, refsrence ix determined relative to a contrxt. So now the original iicture nweds fo be
that its tokens refer to themselves, French+ French the restriction that expression is way. would translate one with the other, some reason would compel me to otherwise. The second argument is this: having learned one of the expressions, you need to be told that the other is just like it, mutatis mutandis. other a of language that contained ζ, wanting to learn how to say ζ in the new language, would need to be told that they should use of) η. This argument somewhat independent of claims about in even if were about practices, which might complicated norms that may have to do with considerations independent of meanings, one could still be moved considerations about new language. Admittedly, in realm has odd instance, synonymy does not entail coreference. since if one could show that there is bucket which not a pail, one would thereby naturally taken to have shown that "bucket" and are not synonyms. There is a choice to be made here. One option is to coreference is a sine non of synonymy. we get conclusion there is synonymy for expressions like ζ. The second option is to rethink condition in light of thinking about sameness of meaning in area. this were merely debate about what gets be "synonymy", I see no prefer option except for weight of tradition (but for labels is a fragile and all changes of I do not think, though, that this is a dispute about labels. So let me out the objection here. We could start by focusing on "bucket" and Suppose that have the same meaning. One might say that is a consequence of having the same meaning that they are (necessarily, analytically) Perhaps thinks this because meaning determines and if two have the same they are to the for context sensitive expressions, meaning does determine on its own; rather, reference determined a context. So now the original picture needs to be
 that its tokens refer to themsElves, FrencH+ is juSt FRenCh With The rEstriction that THat eXpression is to be used onlY that WaY. i wouLD tRanslAte one eXPrESSioN wItH thE oTHeR, unleSs sOme reasOn would comPel Me To do otherwisE. thE second argUmeNt is this: haviNg lEarned OnE of THe expResSions, You onlY Need to Be told thaT tHE other IS just liKE It, MutaTis mutandis. In otheR WoRDs, a speaker of a lAnguagE tHAt CONtaIneD ζ, wanting tO lEarn hOW to say ζ IN tHE NEw lANguage, would juSt need to be tOLd tHat theY sHouLD use (toKens oF) η. tHis Argument is sOmewHat indepeNdent oF Claims aBOut tranSlatioN, in ThaT eveN If OnE weRe UNsuRE aBouT TraNslation PrAcTices, WhicH MIGHt inCorPoraTe comPlicated norms ThaT may HAve To do wIth coNsidErAtionS indepEndenT oF meanings, one couLd stIll be moveD by CoNsiDeRatioNS about LeaRniNg a new lAnguage. 10 aDmiTtEDLY, sYnonymy in this realm HaS ODd Features. for insTAnCe, SYnonymy dOeS noT entAIL coreFereNCe. this is trOublinG, SiNcE if one cOuLd show ThAt tHerE is a bUCket Which iS not a paiL, one wOUld thereby be naTUrally taken to HAvE SHoWN thaT "buCket" and "pail" Are nOT synOnymS. thEre IS a choIce to Be MAdE Here. One option is to inSiSt that CorefErence is a sine Qua non of syNONYmy. Then wE easILy GEt the conclusioN that There is no sYNonymy foR exprEssions lIke ζ. The seCONd option Is tO reThiNk tHIS cOndition in ligHT Of thInKing aboUt sAmeness Of mEanIng In tHe Token-refeRential aReA. IF tHiS weRe merELy a debatE aBouT wHat Gets tO Be callEd "synOnymY", I SeE No rEason to PReFER one OpTiOn ovEr tHe Other, ExcePT poSsibly fOr the weigHt oF TradItIoN (but traDition for labeLs Is a fragile ThIng, And all CHAnges of tRadition start out being anTI-traditIon). i do noT thiNk, though, tHat This is JusT A dispuTe abouT labeLs. so lET Me fleSH OuT thE oBjection heRE. we cOuld sTaRt by FocusinG on "bucket" and "pail". SuPPosE that they do haVe tHe saME MeAniNG. ONE miGhT Say THAt it is a consequeNce of their HaVInG the same meANinG tHat they Are (neceSsariLY, analytIcally) corEferentiaL. PErhaPS One Thinks this Is becausE meaning dETermiNEs ReferEncE, and if TwO exPressIons haVE thE same MeaninG, tHen theY are gUaRanteed tO have the same referent. But For conText sEnsItive exprEssIOns, Meaning doEs noT determine RefEreNce on Its OWn; ratHer, rEFeRenCE is deTermINed relatiVE tO a cONTeXt. So now the oRIGInaL pictUre NEeds to Be
 that its tokens refer tothemselves , Fre nch + i sjust  Fre nch with the r e stri ction that that expres sionis to b e  u sed o nly tha t  w a y . I  w ou ldtr a ns lateone  expres sion withthe  o ther, unless so me reasonwou ld compel me  to  do ot he rwi s e. Th e s econd  argum e nt isthis: hav in g  learn e d one o f th e ex pressions, you on l yn eed to be told  thatth e  o t h erisjust likeit , mut a tis mut a nd i s .  In other words,a speaker o f  alangua ge  th a t cont ained  ζ ,  wa nting to le arnhow to sa y ζ in the new languag e, wou ldjus t ne e dto  be  t o ldt ha t t h eyshould u se  ( token s of ) η .  Thi s a rgum ent i s somewhat in dep ende n t o f cla ims a bout  t ransl ation,  in t ha t even if one w ereunsure ab out  t ran sl ation practi ces , w hich mi ght inc o rpo ra t e co mplicated norms th at m ay  have to  do wi t hco n siderati on s i ndep e n dentof m e an ings, on e coul d  s ti ll be m ov ed byco nsi der ation s  abo ut lea rning anew l a nguage. 10 Adm i ttedly, synon y my i nt hisrea lm has oddfeat u res.  For in sta n ce, s ynony my do e s not entail corefe re nce. T his i s troubling,since if o n e could sh ow t h at there is a buc ket w hich is no t  a pail,  onewould th ereby ben a turallytak entohav e sh own that "buc k e t" a nd  "pail"  ar e not s yno nym s.The re  is a cho ice to b ema de  h ere . One option i stoin sis t tha t  coref erenc e is  a  s i nequa non of s ynon ym y.  The n w eeasil y ge t  th e concl usion tha t t h ereis  n o synon ymy for expre ss ions likeζ.  Th e seco n d  optionis to rethink this cond i tion in  li ght o f th inking ab out  samen ess of mea ning i n the  t oke n - refer e n ti alar ea. If thi s wer e mer el y adebateabout what gets to becalled "synon ymy ", I s ee  no re a son  t o  pr e f er one option o ver the ot he r ,except pos s ibl yfor the  weight  of t r adition  (but tra dition fo rlabe l s  is  a fragile  thing,and all c h anges of  trad iti on sta rt  ou t bei ng ant i -tr aditi on). I  d o notthink ,though,that this is just a dis pute a boutlab els. So l etm e f lesh outtheobjectionher e.We co uld start  byf oc usi n g on"buc k et" and " p ai l". S up pose that t h e y  do  have  th e  samemean ing. One might sa y  that it is acons e q uen ceo f th ei r having the s ame  m e a ning tha tthey are (n ecessari ly ,  anal ytical ly) co referen t i al .  Perha ps o nethinks th isis because  m ea n ing de term in es ref erence ,  and i f two expression s hav e the s a memeani ng , thent heyare guaran teed to hav e thesame  refe rent. B ut  for c ont ex t sensitiv e  expressi ons,meaning  d oesnot  deter mine r efere nceon  it s own; ra t h er ,  r ef e ren ce i s det er mine d relativ e  to a co nte x t. So n ow  th e origin a lp i cture need s t o be
 that_its tokens_refer to themselves, French+_is just_French_with the_restriction_that that expression_is to be_used only that way._I would translate_one_expression with the other, unless some reason would compel me to do otherwise. The_second_argument is_this:_having_learned one of the expressions,_you only need to be_told that_the other is just like it, mutatis mutandis._In_other words, a_speaker of a language that contained ζ, wanting to_learn how to say ζ in_the new language,_would_just_need to be told_that they should use (tokens of)_η. This argument is somewhat independent_of claims about translation, in that even_if one were unsure about translation_practices, which might incorporate complicated_norms that_may have to do with_considerations independent of_meanings, one_could still be_moved by considerations about learning a_new language. 10_Admittedly, synonymy in this realm has_odd_features. For instance,_synonymy_does_not entail_coreference. This is_troubling,_since if_one_could show that there is a_bucket_which is not a pail, one would_thereby be naturally taken_to_have shown that "bucket"_and "pail" are not synonyms._There is a choice to be_made here._One option_is to insist that coreference is a sine qua non of_synonymy. Then we easily get the_conclusion that there is_no synonymy_for_expressions like ζ._The_second option_is to rethink this condition in light_of thinking_about sameness of meaning in the_token-referential area. If this_were_merely a debate about what gets_to be called "synonymy", I see_no reason to prefer one_option_over_the other, except possibly for_the weight of tradition (but tradition_for labels is_a fragile thing, and all changes of_tradition_start out being anti-tradition). I do_not_think, though, that this is just_a_dispute_about labels. So let me_flesh out the objection here. We_could start by focusing on "bucket" and "pail". Suppose_that they do_have the same meaning. One_might_say_that it is a consequence of their having the same_meaning that_they are (necessarily,_analytically) coreferential. Perhaps one thinks this is because meaning determines_reference, and if two expressions have the_same meaning, then they are guaranteed to have the same referent._But for context sensitive expressions, meaning does not_determine reference on its own; rather, reference_is determined relative to_a_context. So now the original picture needs_to_be