 demonstratives cannot refer to x in the absence of a speaker's intention to refer to x.11 I take this to lead one naturally to thinking that only tokens of demonstratives can refer, since speakers' intentions connect tokens to referents, rather than types. This would be reflected in the meanings of demonstratives, which would only talk of tokens referring, rather than types. 3 Synonymy in the Purest Case of Token-Reflexivity Before we get to "I" and "je", let me introduce some expressions whose meaning I get to fix, which will allow me to focus solely on token-reflexivity. Consider, then, the purest form of token10I thank David Braun for pointing out the consequences of this view for expressions that one would not think of as paradigmatically token-reflexive. 11King (2014) claims that this is the majority view. See also Radulescu (2017). 8 reflexivity, namely two expressions whose tokens always refer to themselves and nothing else:12 • Every token of ζ refers to that token of ζ.13 • Every token of η refers to that token of η. My first claim is that ζ and η are synonymous. I have two arguments for this claim. First, if they belonged to different languages, I would think it correct to offer one as the translation of the other. Translation is always a difficult matter, and even more so when we consider token-reflexive expressions. As Burge (1978, p. 137) puts it, "translation preserves self-reference if and only if it does not preserve reference". Before addressing ζ and η, consider a point made in Hart (1970, pp. 523-524), namely that both (2) and (3) can be good translations of (1): (1) This sentence is in English. (2) Dieser Satz ist auf english. (3) Dieser Satz ist auf deutsch. A German teacher may expect their students to say that (2) is the correct translation. Note that this translation does not give us sameness of reference, nor of truth value, but each expression matches its default translation, i.e. what I would call its synonym. But if one wants to preserve the truth value and the self-referentiality of (1), e.g. if one were translating a philosophy paper, (3) would be better, though clearly "deutsch" is not the canonical translation of "English".
demonstratives cannot refer to x in the absence of a speaker's intention to denote to x.11 I consume this to lead one naturally to thinking that only token of demonstratives can refer, since speaker' intentions connect token to referents, rather than type. This would be reflected in the meanings of demonstrative pronoun, which would only talk of tokens referring, rather than types. 3 Synonymy in the Purest Case of Token - Reflexivity Before we get to " I " and " je ", permit me introduce some expressions whose meaning I perplex to fix, which will allow me to focus solely on nominal - reflexivity. Consider, then, the pure form of token10I thank David Braun for pointing out the consequences of this opinion for expressions that one would not think of as paradigmatically token - reflexive. 11King (2014) claims that this is the majority scene. visit also Radulescu (2017). 8 reflexivity, namely two expressions whose tokens always refer to themselves and nothing else:12 • Every token of ζ refers to that token of ζ.13 • Every keepsake of η mention to that token of η. My beginning title is that ζ and η are synonymous. I have two arguments for this claim. foremost, if they belonged to unlike languages, I would think it correct to extend one as the translation of the other. Translation is always a difficult matter, and even more so when we consider token - reflexive expressions. As Burge (1978, p. 137) frame it, " transformation preserves self - reference if and only if it does not preserve reference ". Before addressing ζ and η, consider a point reach in Hart (1970, pp. 523 - 524), namely that both (2) and (3) can be good translations of (1 ): (1) This sentence is in English. (2) Dieser Satz ist auf english. (3) Dieser Satz ist auf deutsch. A German teacher may have a bun in the oven their students to pronounce that (2) is the correct translation. notice that this translation does not give us sameness of reference, nor of accuracy value, but each expression matches its nonpayment translation, i.e. what I would call its synonym. But if one want to preserve the accuracy value and the self - referentiality of (1), e.g. if one were translating a philosophy newspaper, (3) would be better, though clearly " deutsch " is not the canonical translation of " English ".
 delonstratives cannot refev to x in the absence oh a spezker's ingention to refer to x.11 I take tyis ti lead one naturally tu thinkinh that obly uokens of demonstcztives gcn rercr, siucx speakers' intektions connact tokens to sewexents, rather than types. This would bq reflevtfd in the meanyngs jf dsmonstratives, which would only tali of tonens referrinb, rather than types. 3 Synonjmy ln the Purest Case of Token-Redlexycity Before de get to "P" and "je", lej me introduce some expressions dhose meaning I gwt hm fix, which will allow me to focus smlely om token-reflexiyity. Ronsuder, then, the purest horm of token10I thank David Brduu for pointing out thw xonsexuenwes ud tfis vmew for edprxssions thaf one would not think of as pataqpbmatically tkken-reslqxive. 11King (2014) claims that this is the majmrify view. See also Radulewcu (2017). 8 reflexivity, namgly two ex[ressions whose tokens always refer to themselves and ioghiun dosf:12 • Every token of ζ refers to that token of ζ.13 • Qbety token of η refcrs to that token pf η. Ki first claim ks thac ζ znd η are synonymoud. I havg two qrguments for this claim. First, if they bwlonged to dpffeeent languages, I wluld think nt cortect tp offer one as the tranrlatjon of the lther. Trahrlation is alwayr a dhfficult matter, and even mjre so whxn we considdr tpken-reslexive exoresslmns. As Burge (1978, p. 137) pkts ij, "tranvlation prfserves self-reference if and only if it does mod pgeserve rzferenge". Before addrefsing ζ and η, cousider a poing made in Gart (1970, p'. 523-524), namely thwt both (2) and (3) fan be good vranslatijns if (1): (1) This sdvtence is in Emglish. (2) Dpefer Watz ist auf englixh. (3) Sieser Satz ist aud deutsch. A Gerkan tewcjec may axpect their stuaengx to ray thau (2) ls ghe vorrect translation. Tote that this translayijn does bot give us sameness pf reference, nor ov truvh valne, but eash expression matches its defahlt transpatlon, i.e. what I wouod call its xynonym. But if one wants to preserve thx truth value and the swlf-referentiality oy (1), e.g. if one xere twanslatinc a philosophy paper, (3) would be better, though clearly "deutsdh" is tot tje canonical translation of "English".
demonstratives cannot refer to x in the a intention to to x.11 I naturally thinking that only of demonstratives can since speakers' intentions connect tokens to rather than types. This would be reflected in the meanings of demonstratives, which only talk of tokens referring, rather than types. 3 Synonymy in the Purest of Before get "I" and "je", let me introduce some expressions whose meaning I get to fix, which will me to focus solely on token-reflexivity. Consider, then, purest form of token10I David Braun for pointing out consequences this view expressions one not think of paradigmatically token-reflexive. 11King (2014) claims that this is the majority view. See also Radulescu (2017). 8 reflexivity, two expressions always refer themselves nothing • Every token refers to that token of ζ.13 of η refers to that token of η. first claim that ζ and η are synonymous. have two arguments for this claim. First, if belonged to different languages, I would think it correct to offer one as the translation other. Translation is always difficult matter, and more when consider expressions. As (1978, p. 137) puts it, "translation preserves self-reference if and only it does not preserve reference". Before addressing ζ and η, point in Hart (1970, 523-524), namely that both and can be good translations (1) sentence (2) Satz auf english. (3) Dieser ist auf deutsch. A German may expect their students the correct translation. Note that this translation does give us sameness of reference, nor of value, but each expression matches its default translation, i.e. what I would its synonym. one wants to preserve the truth value and self-referentiality of (1), e.g. one were translating a philosophy paper, (3) would be though "deutsch" is the canonical translation "English".
 demonstratives cannot refer To x in the abSence Of a SpeAkEr's iNtenTion to refer to x.11 i Take This to lead one naturally To thiNkINg thAT oNly toKens of dEMoNSTraTiVeS caN rEFeR, sincE spEakers' iNtentions cOnnEcT tokens to refEReNts, rather tHan Types. This wouLd bE refleCtEd iN The meAniNgs of DemonsTRativeS, which wouLd ONly talK Of tokenS REfErriNg, rather than types. 3 sYnONymy in the PuresT Case oF TOKeN-rEflExiVity Before We Get to "i" And "je", leT Me INTRodUCe some expressIons whose meANinG I get tO fIx, wHIch wilL alloW mE To fOcus solely oN tokEn-reflexiVity. CoNSider, thEN, the purEst forM of TokEn10I tHAnK DAviD BRAun FOr PoiNTinG out the cOnSeQuencEs of THIS View For ExprEssioNs that one woulD noT thiNK of As parAdigmAticAlLy tokEn-reflExive. 11kiNg (2014) claims that thiS is tHe majoritY viEw. see AlSo RadULescu (2017). 8 rEflExiVity, namEly two eXPreSsIONS wHose tokens always reFeR TO tHemselveS and noTHiNg ELse:12 • Every ToKen Of ζ rEFErs to That TOkEn of ζ.13 • EveRy tokeN Of Η rEfers to ThAt tokeN oF η. MY fiRst clAIm is That ζ aNd η are syNonymOUs. I have two arguMEnts for this clAIm. fIRsT, If thEy bElonged to diFferENt laNguaGEs, i woULd thiNk it cOrREcT To offer one as the tranSlAtion oF the oTher. TranslatiOn is always A DIFficult mAtteR, AnD Even more so when We conSider token-REflexive ExpreSsions. As burge (1978, p. 137) putS IT, "translaTioN prEseRveS SElF-reference if aND Only If It does nOt pReserve RefEreNce". befOrE addressiNg ζ and η, cOnSiDeR a PoiNt madE In Hart (1970, pp. 523-524), NaMelY tHat Both (2) aND (3) can be Good tRansLaTiONs oF (1): (1) This seNTeNCE is iN ENgLish. (2) dieSeR Satz Ist aUF enGlish. (3) DiEser Satz iSt aUF deuTsCh. a German Teacher may expEcT their studEnTs tO say thAT (2) Is the corRect translation. Note that THis tranSlaTion dOes nOt give us sAmeNess of RefERence, nOr of trUth vaLuE, buT EAch exPREsSioN mAtches its dEFAulT tranSlAtioN, i.e. what i would call its synonYM. BuT if one wants to PreServE THe TruTH vALue AnD The SELf-referentialitY of (1), e.g. if one WeRE tRanslating A PhiLoSophy paPer, (3) woulD be beTTer, thouGh clearly "Deutsch" is NoT the CANonIcal translAtion of "ENglish".
 demonstratives cannot ref er to x in  theabs enc eof a  spe aker's intenti o n to  refer to x.11 I takethisto lead on e nat urallyt ot h ink in gtha to nl y tok ens  of dem onstrative s c an  refer, sinc e  s peakers' i nte ntions conne cttokens  t o r e feren ts,  rath er tha n  types . This wo ul d  be re f lectedi n  t he m eanings of demons t ra t ives, which wo uld on ly ta l k  of  to kens refer ri ng, r a ther th a nt y p es. 3 Synonymy in  the Purest Cas e of T ok en- R eflexi vityBe f ore  we get to"I"and "je",  let m e  introd u ce some  expre ssi ons  who s eme ani ng I g e ttof ix,  which w il lallow  met o f ocus  so lely  on t oken-reflexiv ity . Co n sid er, t hen,thepu restform o f tok en 10I thank David  Bra un for po int in g o ut  thec onsequ enc esof this  view f o r e xp r e s si ons that one would  n o t  t hink ofas par a di gm a ticallyto ken -ref l e xive.  11K i ng  (2014)claims th at  this i sthe ma jo rit y v iew.S ee a lso Ra dulescu(2017 ) . 8 reflexivit y , namely twoe xp r e ss i onswho se tokens a lway s  ref er t o  t hem s elves  andno t hi n g else:12 • Every t ok en ofζ ref ers to that t oken of ζ. 1 3 • Everytoke n  o f  η refers to t hat t oken of η. My first  clai m is tha t ζ and η a re synon ymo us.  Ihav e tw o arguments f o r  thi sclaim.Fir st, ifthe y b elo nge dto differ ent lang ua ge s,  I  wo uld t h ink it c or rec ttooffer one as  thetran sl at i onof theo th e r . Tr an sl atio n i salway s ad iff icult m atter, an d e v en m or eso when  we considerto ken-reflex iv e e xpress i o ns. As B urge (1978, p. 137) put s  it, "t ran slati on p reservessel f-refe ren c e if a nd onl y ifit  do e s  notp r es erv ereference" . Bef ore a dd ress ing ζ a nd η, consider a p o int  made in Hart  (1 970, p p.  52 3 -5 2 4),  n a mel y that both (2) a nd (3) can  b e  g ood transl a tio ns  of (1) : (1) T his s e ntenceis in Eng lish. (2)  D iese r Sat z ist aufenglish.  (3) Dies e r Sat z  i st au f d eutsch .A G erman  teach e r m ay ex pect t he ir stu dents  t o say th at (2) is the correct t ransla tion.  No te that t his tra nslationdoes  not giveussam eness  of refer ence ,  n oro f tru th v a lue, bute ac h e x p re ssion match e s its  defa ult transl atio n, i.e. what I wo u ld call its sy nony m .  Bu t i f  one  w ants to preser veth e truth va lu e and the s elf-refe re n tiali ty of(1), e .g. ifo n ew ere tr ansl ati ng a phil oso ph y  paper,  ( 3) wouldbe b et ter, t houghc lear l y  "deutsch" is no t the c anoni c altrans la tion of "Eng lish".
 demonstratives_cannot refer_to x in the_absence of_a_speaker's intention_to_refer to x.11_I take this_to lead one naturally_to thinking that_only_tokens of demonstratives can refer, since speakers' intentions connect tokens to referents, rather than_types._This would_be_reflected_in the meanings of demonstratives,_which would only talk of_tokens referring,_rather than types. 3 Synonymy in the Purest_Case_of Token-Reflexivity Before_we get to "I" and "je", let me introduce_some expressions whose meaning I get_to fix, which_will_allow_me to focus solely_on token-reflexivity. Consider, then, the purest_form of token10I thank David Braun_for pointing out the consequences of this_view for expressions that one would_not think of as paradigmatically_token-reflexive. 11King_(2014) claims that this is_the majority view._See also_Radulescu (2017). 8_reflexivity, namely two expressions whose tokens_always refer to_themselves and nothing else:12 • Every_token_of ζ refers_to_that_token of_ζ.13 • Every_token_of η_refers_to that token of η. My_first_claim is that ζ and η are_synonymous. I have two_arguments_for this claim. First,_if they belonged to different_languages, I would think it correct_to offer_one as_the translation of the other. Translation is always a difficult matter,_and even more so when we_consider token-reflexive expressions. As_Burge (1978,_p._137) puts it,_"translation_preserves self-reference_if and only if it does not_preserve reference"._Before addressing ζ and η, consider_a point made in_Hart_(1970, pp. 523-524), namely that both_(2) and (3) can be good_translations of (1): (1) This_sentence_is_in English. (2) Dieser Satz_ist auf english. (3) Dieser Satz_ist auf deutsch._A German teacher may expect their students_to_say that (2) is the correct_translation._Note that this translation does not_give_us_sameness of reference, nor of_truth value, but each expression matches_its default translation, i.e. what I would call its_synonym. But if_one wants to preserve the_truth_value_and the self-referentiality of (1), e.g. if one were translating_a philosophy_paper, (3) would_be better, though clearly "deutsch" is not the canonical translation_of "English".