@inproceedings {5862,
	title = {Collective quantification and the homogeneity constraint},
	volume = {24},
	year = {2014},
	pages = {p. 453{\textendash}472},
	abstract = {<p>The main theoretical claim of the paper is that a slightly revised version of the analysis of mass quantifiers proposed in Roeper 1983, L\&oslash;nning 1987 and Higginbotham 1994 extends to collective quantifiers: such quantifiers denote relations between sums of entities (type e), rather than relations between sets of sums (type ). Against this background I will explain a puzzle observed by Dowty (1986) for all and generalized to all quantifiers by Winter 2002: plural quantification is not allowed with all the predicates that are traditionally classified as \&rdquo;collective\&rdquo;. The Homogeneity Constraint \&ndash; as well as the weaker requirement of divisiveness - will be shown to be too strong (for both collective and mass quantifiers). What is required is that the nominalization of the nuclear-scope predicate denotes a maximal sum (rather than a group). Divisiveness is a sufficient, but not a necessary condition for this to happen. Non-divisive predicates such as form a circle, which denote sets of \&lsquo;extensional\&rsquo; groups are allowed, because extensional groups are equivalent to the maximal sum of their members. It is only intensional group predicates that block collective Qs.Keywords: collective quantification, mass quantification, homogeneous, cumulative, divisive, groups, sums, maximality operator, plural logic</p>
},
	issn = {2163-5951},
	doi = {10.3765/salt.v24i0.2428},
	url = {http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/24.453},
	author = {Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin}
}
