Scalar implicatures with discourse referents: a case study on plurality inferences

Anand, P., Andrews, C., Farkas, D., & Wagers, M. (2011). The exclusive interpretation of plural nominals in quantificational environments. In N. Ashton, A. Chereches, & D. Lutz (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 21 (pp. 176–196). https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v21i0.2617. Anvari, A. (2019). Aspects of contextual enrichment. Ecole Normale Supérieure dissertation. Bale, A., & Barner, D. (2009). The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics, 26(3), 217–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp003. Bale, A., Gagnon, M., & Khanjian, H. (2011). On the relationship between morphological and semantic markedness. Morphology, 21(2), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-010-9158-1. Bar-Lev, M. (2018). Free choice, homogeneity and innocent inclusion. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem dissertation. Bar-Lev, M., & Fox, D. (2020). Free choice, simplification, and Innocent Inclusion. Natural Language Semantics, 28, 175–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-020-09162-y. Barner, D., & Snedeker, J. (2005). Quantity judgments and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition, 97(1), 41–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.06.009. Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(2), 159–219. Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Beaver, D., & Krahmer, E. (2001). A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 10(2), 147–182. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008371413822. Bergen, L., Levy, R., & Goodman, N. (2016). Pragmatic reasoning through semantic inference. Semantics & Pragmatics, 9(20), 1–83. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.20. Brasoveanu, A. (2007). Structured nominal and modal reference. Rutgers University dissertation. Brasoveanu, A. (2008). Donkey pluralities: Plural information states versus non-atomic individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31(2), 129–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9035-0. Breheny, R., Klinedinst, N., Romoli, J., & Sudo, Y. (2018). The symmetry problem: Current theories and prospects. Natural Language Semantics, 26(2), 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9141-z. Buccola, B., & Spector, B. (2016). Modified numerals and maximality. Linguistics and Philosophy, 39, 151–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-0169187-2. Bylinina, L., & Nouwen, R. (2018). On “zero" and semantic plurality. Glossa, 3(1), 98. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.441. Champollion, L., Bumford, D., & Henderson, R. (2019). Donkeys under discussion. Semantics and Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.1. Charlow, S. (2014). On the semantics of exceptional scope. New York University dissertation. Chemla, E. (2008). An epistemic step for anti-presuppositions. Journal of Semantics, 25(2), 141–173. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm017. Chemla, E. (2009). Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. LSCP and MIT: Ms. Chemla, E., & Spector, B. (2011). Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, 28(3), 359–400. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq023. Chierchia, G. (1995). Dynamics of meaning: Anaphora, presupposition, and the theory of grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chierchia, G. (1998). Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of ‘semantic parameter’. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp. 53–103). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures (pp. 39–103). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chierchia, G. (2010). Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese, 174(1), 99–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9686-6. Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2012). Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 3, pp. 2297–2331). Berlin: de Gruyter. Clifton, C., & Dube, C. (2010). Embedded implicatures observed: A comment on Geurts and Pouscoulous (2009). Semantics & Pragmatics, 3(7), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.7. Crnič, L., Chemla, E., & Fox, D. (2015). Scalar implicatures of embedded disjunction. Natural Language Semantics, 23(4), 271–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-015-9116-x. Cummins, C. (2014). Typicality made familiar: A commentary on Geurts and van Tiel (2013). Semantics & Pragmatics, 7(8), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.8. Dotlačil, J. (2013). Reciprocals distribute over information states. Journal of Semantics, 30(4), 423–477. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffs016. Egré, P., & Cozic, M. (2016). Conditionals. In M. Aloni & P. Dekker (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of formal semantics (pp. 490–524). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139236157.018. Elbourne, P. (2005). Situations and individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Evans, G. (1980). Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 11(2), 337–362. Farkas, D. F., & de Swart, H. E. (2010). The semantics and pragmatics of plurals. Semantics & Pragmatics, 3(6), 1–54. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.6. Fox, D. (2007). Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (Eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics (pp. 71–112). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Fox, D. (2012). Presupposition projection from quantificational sentences: Trivalence, local accommodation, and presupposition strengthening. In I. Caponigro & C. Cecchetto (Eds.), From grammar to meaning: The spontaneous logicality of language (pp. 201–232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fox, D., and Hackl, M. (2006). The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29(5), 537–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-006-9004-4. Fox, D., & Katzir, R. (2011). On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics, 19(1), 87–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9065-3. Fox, D., and Katzir, R. (2021). Notes on iterated rationality models of scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, 38(4), 571–600. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffab015. Franke, M. (2011). Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation. Semantics & Pragmatics, 4(1), 1–82. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.4.1. Franke, M., & Bergen, L. (2020). Theory-driven statistical modeling for semantics and pragmatics: A case study on grammatically generated implicature readings. Language, 96(2), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2020.0034. Franke, M., Schlotterbeck, F., & Augurzky, P. (2017). Embedded scalars, preferred readings and prosody: An experimental revisit. Journal of Semantics, 34(1), 153–199. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffw007. Gajewski, J., & Sharvit, Y. (2012). In defense of the grammatical approach to local implicatures. Natural Language Semantics, 20(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-011-9074-x. George, B. (2008). A new predictive theory of presupposition projection. In T. Friedman & S. Ito (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 18 (pp. 358–375). https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v18i0.2472. Geurts, B. (2008). Implicture as a discourse phenomenon. In L. McNally & E. Puig-Waldmüller (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (pp. 261–275). https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2007.v11i0.644. Geurts, B. (2009). Scalar implicature and local pragmatics. Mind & Language, 24(1), 51–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.01353.x. Geurts, B., & Pouscoulous, N. (2009). Embedded implicatures? Semantics & Pragmatics, 2(4), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.2.4. Geurts, B., & van Tiel, B. (2013). Embedded scalars. Semantics & Pragmatics, 6(9), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.9. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1990). Dynamic Montague Grammar. In L. Karttunen & L. Polos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on Logic and Language (pp. 3–48). Budapest: Eotvos Lorand University Press. Grimm, S. (2013). Plurality is distinct from number-neutrality. In Y. Fainleib, N. LaCara & Y. Park (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 41 (pp. 247–258). Amherst: GLSA. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14(1), 39–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00628304. Gutzmann, D. (2015). Use-conditional meaning: Studies in multidimensional semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gutzmann, D., & McCready, E. (2016). Quantification with pejoratives. In R. Finkbeiner, J. Meibauer, & H. Wiese (Eds.), Pejoration (pp. 75–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation. Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In M. Barlow, D. P. Flickinger & M. Wescoat (Eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 2 (pp. 114–125). Stanford: CSLI Publications. Heim, I. (1990). E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13(2), 137–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630732. Heim, I. (1991). Artikel und Definitheit. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, (pp. 487–535). Berlin: de Gruyter. Heim, I. (2011). Definiteness and indefiniteness. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 2, pp. 996–1025). Berlin: de Gruyter. Horn, L. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Ivlieva, N. (2013). Scalar implicatures and the grammar of plurality and disjunction. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. Ivlieva, N. (2014). Multiplicity and non-monotonic environments. In L. Crnič & U. Sauerland (Eds.), The art and craft of semantics: A festschrift for Irene Heim (Vol. 1, pp. 245–251). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jZiNmM4N/. Ivlieva, N. (2020). Dependent plurality and the theory of scalar implicatures: Remarks on Zweig 2009. Journal of Semantics, 37(3), 425–454. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffaa004. Kadmon, N. (1987). On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation. Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. A. G. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen, & M. J. B. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language (pp. 277–322). Amsterdam: Mathematical Center. Kamp, H., and Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic: An introduction to model theoretic semantics in natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kanazawa, M. (1993). Dynamic generalized quantifiers and monotonicity. Report LP-199302. Amsterdam: ILLC. Kanazawa, M. (1994). Weak vs. strong readings of donkey sentences and mono-tonicity inferences in a dynamic setting. Linguistics and Philosophy, 17(2), 109–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00984775. Karttunen, L. (1976). Discourse referents. In J. D. McCawley (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 7: Notes from the linguistic underground (pp. 363–385). New York: Academic Press. Karttunen, L., & Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicature. In O. Choon-Kyu & D. Dinneen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 11: Presupposition (pp. 1–56). New York: Academic Press. Katzir, R. (2007). Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(6), 669–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9029-y. Kaufmann, M., & Kaufmann, S. (2015). Conditionals and modality. In S. Lappin & C. Fox (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp. 237–270). New York: Wiley. Krahmer, E., & Muskens, R. (1995). Negation and disjunction in discourse representation theory. Journal of Semantics, 12(4), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/12.4.357. Križ, M. (2016). Homogeneity, non-maximality, and ‘all’. Journal of Semantics, 33(3), 493–539. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffv006. Križ, M. (2017). Bare plurals, multiciplicity, and homogeneity. Ms., Institut Jean Nicod. Križ, M., & Spector, B. (2021). Interpreting plural predication: Homogeneity and non-maximality. Linguistics and Philosophy, 44, 1131–1178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-020-09311-w. Landman, F. (2000). Events and plurality. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Landman, F. (2011). Count nouns-mass nouns, neat nouns-mess nouns. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 6, 1–67. https://doi.org/10.4148/biyclc.v6i0.1579. Lima, S. (2018). New perspectives on the count-mass distinction: Understudied languages and psycholinguistics. Language and Linguistics Compass, 12(11), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12303. Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice theoretical approach. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and the interpretation of language (pp. 302–323). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Magri, G. (2009a). A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory implicatures. Constraint promotion for optimality theory. Massachusetts Institut of Technology dissertation. Magri, G. (2009). A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures. Natural Language Semantics, 17(3), 245–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-009-9042-x. Mandelkern, M., & Rothschild, D. (2019). Definiteness projection. Natural Language Semantics, 28, 77–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-091592. Martí, L. (2020). Inclusive plurals and the theory of number. Linguistic Inquiry, 51(1), 37–74. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00330. Marty, P., Romoli, J., Sudo, Y., & Breheny, R. (2022). Negative free choice. Semantics & Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.14.13. Marty, P. P. (2017). Implicatures in the DP domain. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. Mayr, C. (2015). Plural definite NPs presuppose multiplicity via embedded exhaustification. In S. D’Antonio, M. Moroney & C. Rose Little (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 25 (pp. 204–224). https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v25i0.3059. McCready, E. (2010). Varieties of conventional implicatures. Semantics & Pragmatics, 3(8), 1-57. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.8. Meyer, M.-C., & Feiman, R. (2021). Priming reveals similarities and differences between three purported cases of implicature: Some, number and free choice disjunctions. Journal of Memory and Language. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104206. Muskens, R. (1996). Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19(2), 143–186. Nouwen, R. (2003). Plural pronominal anaphora in context: Dynamic apsects of quantification. Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS dissertation. Nouwen, R. (2007). On dependent pronouns and dynamic semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 36(2), 123–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-0069029-8. Pearson, H., Khan, M., & Snedeker, J. (2010). Even more evidence for the emptiness of plurality: An experimental investigation of plural interpretation as a species of implicature. In N. Li & D. Lutz (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 20 (pp. 489–508). https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2554. Percus, O. (2006). Anti-presuppositions. In A. Ueyama (Ed.), Theoretical and empirical studies of reference and anaphora: Toward the establishment of generative grammar as an empirical science (pp. 52–73). Washington, DC: Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Peters, S., & Westerståhl, D. (2006). Quantifiers in language and logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Postal, P. (1966). On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. In F. Dinneen (Ed.), Report on the seventeenth annual round table meeting on linguistics and language studies (pp. 177–206). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Potts, C. (2007). The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics, 33(2), 165–198. Potts, C., Lassitert, D., Levy, R., & Frank, M. C. (2016). Embedded implicatures as pragmatic inferences under compositional lexical uncertainty. Journal of Semantics, 33(4), 755–802. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffv012. Romoli, J. (2012). Soft but strong: Neg-raising, soft triggers, and exhaustification. Harvard University dissertation. Roth, M. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation in Montague grammar, file change semantics, and situation semantics. In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.), Generalized quantifiers: Linguistic and logical approaches (pp. 237–268). Dordrecht: Reidel. Roth, M., & Partee, B. (1982). Conjunction type ambiguity, and wide scope or. In D. P. F. Marlys Macken & N. Wiegand (Eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 1 (pp. 353–362). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Rothschild, D. (2017). A trivalent approach to anaphora and presupposition. In A. Cremers, T. van Gessel & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium 2017 (pp. 1–13). Amsterdam: ILLC. Rothschild, D., & Yalcin, S. (2016). Three notions of dynamicness in language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 39(4), 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9188-1. Rothstein, S. (2017). Semantics for counting and measuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9780511734830. Sauerland, U. (2003). A new semantics for number. In R. B. Young & Y. Zhou (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 13 (pp. 258–275). https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v13i0.2898. Sauerland, U. (2004). Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(3), 367–391. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000023378.71748.db. Sauerland, U. (2008). Implicated presuppositions. In A. Steube (Ed.), The discourse potential of underspecified structures (pp. 581–600). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Sauerland, U., Anderssen, J., & Yatsushiro, K. (2005). The plural is semantically unmarked. In S. Kepser & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence (pp. 409–430). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schlenker, P. (2006). Scopal independence: A note on branching and wide scope readings of indefinites and disjunctions. Journal of Semantics, 23(3), 281–314. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffl005. Schlenker, P. (2012). Maximize presupposition and Gricean reasoning. Natural Language Semantics, 20(4), 391–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-0129085-2. Schwarzschild, R. (1996). Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Singh, R. (2019). Context, content, and the occasional costs of implicature computation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2214. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02214. Spector, B. (2006). Aspects de la pragmatique des operateurs logiques. Université Paris 7, Denis Diderot dissertation. Spector, B. (2007). Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher-order implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (Eds.), Presuppositions and implicatures in compositional semantics (pp. 243–281). New York: Palgrave-Macmillan. Spector, B. (2016). Comparing exhaustivity operator. Semantics & Pragmatics, 9(11), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.11. Spector, B., & Sudo, Y. (2017). Presupposed ignorance and exhaustification: How scalar implicatures and presuppositions interact. Linguistics and Philosophy, 40(5), 473–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988017-9208-9. Stalnaker, R. (1998). On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 7, 3–19. Stateva, P., Andreetta, S., & Stepanov, A. (2016). On the nature of the plurality inference: Ladybugs for Anne. In L. Dupuy, A. Grabizna, N. Foudon, & P. Saint-Gernier (Eds.), Papers dedicated to Anne Reboul. Lyon: CNRS. Stone, M. (1992). ‘Or’ and anaphora. In C. Barker & D. Dowty. (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 2 (pp. 367–385). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University working papers in linguistics. Sudo, Y. (2012). On the semantics of phi features on pronouns. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. Sudo, Y. (2014). Presupposition projection in quantified sentences and cross-dimensional anaphora. Ms., University College London. Sudo, Y. (2016). The existential problem of scalar implicatures and anaphora across alternatives. In C. Piñon (Ed.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics (Vol. 11, pp. 225–244). http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss11/index_en.html. Tieu, L., Bill, C., Romoli, J., & Crain, S. (2020). Testing theories of plural meanings: Insights from acquisition. Cognition, 205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104307. Tieu, L. & Romoli, J. (2019). Plurality. In C. Cummins & N. Katsos (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of experimental semantics and pragmatics (pp. 208–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198791768.013.22. van den Berg, M. (1996). Some aspects of the internal structure of discourse: The dynamics of nominal anaphora. Universiteit van Amsterdam dissertation. van Eijck. (2001). Incremental dynamics. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 10(3), 319–351. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011251627260. von Fintel, K. (2011). Conditionals. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics (Vol. 2, pp. 1515–1438). Berlin: de Gruyter. von Fintel, K. (2012). Subjunctive conditionals. In G. Russell & D. G. Fara (Eds.), The Routledge comparion to philosophy of language (pp. 466–477). New York: Routledge. van Tiel, B. (2014). Embedded scalars and typicality. Journal of Semantics, 31(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft002. van Tiel, B., Noveck, I. A., & Kissine, M. (2018). Reasoning with ‘some’. Journal of Semantics, 35(4), 757–797. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffy012. van Tiel, B., & Pankratz, E. (2021). Adjectival polarity and the processing of scalar inferences. Glossa, 6(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1457. van Tiel, B., Pankratz, E., & Sun, C. (2019). Scales and scalarity: Processing scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 105, 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.12.002. van Tiel, B., van Miltenburg, E., Zevakhina, N., & Geurts, B. (2016). Scalar diversity. Journal of Semantics, 33(1), 137–175. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffu017. Winter, Y. (2001). Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics: The interpretation of coordination, plurality, and scope in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Zweig, E. (2009). Number-neutral bare plurals and the multiplicity implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32(4), 353–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988009-9064-3.