The popular interpretation of token-reflexivism states that at the level of logical form, indexicals and demonstratives are disguised descriptions that employ complex demonstratives or special quotation-mark names adducing particular tokens of the appropriate expressions-types. In my paper I shall contrast two interpretations of the idea of the token-reflexive paraphrase of an indexical sentence. The utterance approach claims that token-reflexive paraphrases adduce to tokens of entire utterances. The sub-utterance approach maintains that token-reflexive paraphrases adduce to tokens of the particular indexical words used in the utterance. Next, I will pose a problem that shows that neither of the two approaches is correct. The problem arises in the general context of semantics for distributed utterances, that is utterances “(…) usually spread out in time, location or other contextual features, in such a way that makes a difference to their proper interpretation.” (McCullagh (forthcoming)). The problem shows that the only viable version of the token-reflexivism must somehow take into the account the referential intentions of the speaker of the context. However, the referential intentions must be restricted by meaning (word-type) related conventions. I will, therefore, close the paper by sketching the framework of restricted intentionalist token-reflexivism. I will also address the issue of its relationship to the general problem of semantics for distributed utterances and argue that restricted intentionalist token-reflexivism has resources enabling automatic and intentional indexicals to be distinguished. It also implies an interesting multidimensional theory of utterances, that is it treats contextual parameters as dimensions of a complex contextual space and utterances as objects located in that contextual space. References Garcia-Carpintero, Manuel. 1998. Indexicals as Token-Reflexives, Mind 107: 529- 561. Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar, George Allen and Unwin Ltd. McCullagh, Mark. (forthcoming) Distributed utterances. Mount, Allyson. 2008. The impurity of ’pure’ indexicals. Philosophical Studies 138, 193-209. Predelli, Stefano. 2005. Contexts. Meaning, truth and the use of language. Oxford University Press.