`1` is certainly an *expression* (the grammatical production) and normal
> English word "expression" as used in the standard.
>
> literal > primary-expression > postfix-expression > unary-expression >
> cast-expression > pm-expression > multiplicative-expression >
> additive-expression > shift-expression > compare-expression >
> relational-expression > equality-expression > and-expression >
> exclusive-or-expression > inclusive-or-expression > logical-and-expression
> > logical-or-expression > conditional-expression > assignment-expression >
> expression
>

I don't agree. The token "1" can be a grammatical _expression_, but it's
not when appearing in the context "f(n+1);". The grammar rule
"multiplicative-expression: additive-expression" means that any sequence of
tokens which can parse as an additive-expression could also parse as a
multiplicative-expression, but it does not mean that every
additive-expression in a parse tree is also a multiplicative-expression. We
also have the rule "simple-capture: this", but we wouldn't say every
instance of the keyword "this" is a simple-capture, only the ones which are
used as the "simple-capture" symbol in the right side of some parent rule.

And using a grammar symbol to mean any sequence of tokens, or even any
sequence of tokens associated with a node in the grammar tree, which "could
be parsed" as that symbol would make things worse: the tokens "int()" can
be a postfix-expression or a type-id, but never both. Sometimes the grammar
alone forces those tokens to be one or another, and in several other places
an explicit disambiguation rule is needed, but clearly even in the cases
where no disambiguation is mentioned, being a valid parse is not enough to
make the tokens a postfix-expression or type-id.