We argue that despite the fact that there are collective predicates that
show homogeneity, homogeneity can be reduced to distributivity (contra Kriz
2015):
First, there is a principled way of distinguishing which collective
predicates show homogeneity: collective achievements and states lack
homogeneity, (1)-(2) while collective activities and accomplishments show
homogeneity, (3)-(4):
(1) The students elected a president. (collective achievement)
(2) These books constitute a famous series. (collective state)
(3) The boys performed *Hamlet *for an hour*.* (collective activity)
(4) The girls built a raft. (collective accomplishment)
The positive version of (1) can be true in a situation where only a subset
of the students (not all the students) actually voted, as long as enough
students voted for the election to be valid. No undefinideness ensues. (2)
can be true in a situation where there is a famous series of 6 books; books
1-3 are famous, while books 4-6 are more obscure. (2) is true, and not
undefined, even though not every sub-series within this larger series is
famous. (3) and (4) though are undefined in situations where some of the
boys did not participate in the performance of *Hamlet*, (3), or some of
girls did not participate in the building of the raft, (4).
Second, collective accomplishments and activities have been analyzed as
being able to host a D operator in their structure, while this is not
possible for collective states and achievements (Brisson 2003). Therefore,
once we control for the aktionsart of a collective predicate, it emerges
that the collective predicates that allow homogeneity are exactly those
that can host a D operator. Therefore, homogeneity can be reduced to
distributivity.