The classical rule of Repetition says that if you take any sentence as a premise and repeat it as a conclusion, you have a valid argument. It’s a very basic rule of logic, and many other rules depend on the guarantee that repeating a sentence, or really, any expression, guarantees sameness of referent, or semantic value. However, Repetition fails for token-reflexive expressions. In this paper, I offer three ways that one might replace Repetition, and still keep an interesting notion of validity. Each is a fine way to go for certain purposes, but I argue that one in particular is to be preferred by the semanticist who thinks that there are token-reflexive expressions in natural languages.

中文翻译：

---

令牌反射和重复

经典的重复规则说，如果您以任何句子为前提并重复作为结论，那么您就有一个有效的论点。这是一个非常基本的逻辑规则，许多其他规则依赖于以下保证：重复一个句子，或者实际上是任何表达式，都可以保证所指对象或语义值的相同性。但是，对于令牌自反表达式，重复失败。在本文中，我提供了三种方法可以替代重复，并且仍然保持一种有趣的有效性概念。每种方法都是实现某些特定目的的一种好方法，但我认为语义学家尤其希望采用一种方法，因为语义学家认为自然语言中存在令牌自反表达。