Quantifier variance holds that different languages can have unrestricted quantifier expressions that differ in meaning, where an expression is a “quantifier” just in case it plays the right inferential role. Several critics argued that J.H. Harris’s “collapse” argument refutes variance by showing that identity of inferential role is incompatible with meaning variance. This standard, syntactic collapse argument has generated several responses. More recently, Cian Dorr proved semantic collapse theorems to generate a semantic collapse argument against variance. The argument is significantly different from standard collapse, so it requires a new response. Here I clarify and analyze the semantic collapse argument, and explain how variantists can and should respond to it. The paper also includes an appendix showing the difficulties of positing identity variance without quantifier variance. The argument in the appendix has yet to appear in print, but is familiar to specialists.

量词差异认为，不同的语言可以有含义不同的不受限制的量词表达式，其中一个表达式是一个“量词”，以防它发挥正确的推理作用。一些批评者认为，JH Harris 的“崩溃”论证通过表明推理角色的同一性与意义差异不相容来驳斥差异。这个标准的、句法崩溃的论点已经产生了几个回应。最近，Cian Dorr 证明了语义崩溃定理以生成语义反对方差的崩溃论点。该论点与标准崩溃有很大不同，因此需要新的回应。在这里，我澄清和分析语义崩溃的论点，并解释变异论者可以并且应该如何回应它。该论文还包括一个附录，显示了在没有量词方差的情况下确定身份方差的困难。附录中的论点尚未出版，但专家们熟悉。