Brasoveanu, Adrian 2007. Donkey Pluralities: Plural Information States vs. Non-atomic Individuals, Stanford University ms. (August 31, 2007) that significantly revises and extends the Sinn und Bedeutung 11 paper with the same title.

The paper argues that two distinct and independent notions of plurality are involved in natural language anaphora and quantification: plural reference (the usual non-atomic individuals) and plural discourse reference, i.e. reference to a quantificational dependency between sets of objects (e.g. atomic / non-atomic individuals) that is established and subsequently elaborated upon in discourse. Following van den Berg (1996), plural discourse reference is modeled as plural information states (i.e. as sets of variable assignments) in a new dynamic system couched in classical type logic that extends Compositional DRT (Muskens 1996). Given the underlying type logic, compositionality at sub-clausal level follows automatically and standard techniques from Montague semantics become available. The idea that plural info states are semantically necessary (in addition to non-atomic individuals) is motivated by relative-clause donkey sentences with multiple instances of singular donkey anaphora that have mixed (weak and strong) readings. At the same time, allowing for non-atomic individuals in addition to plural info states enables us to capture the intuitive parallels between singular and plural (donkey) anaphora, while deriving the incompatibility between singular (donkey) anaphora and collective predicates. The system also accounts for empirically unrelated phenomena, e.g. the uniqueness effects associated with singular (donkey) anaphora discussed in Kadmon (1990) and Heim (1990) among others.

Here are some types of donkey sentences that are analyzed in this paper; many of the examples are (based on examples) from the previous literature -- see the paper for their sources.
1. Every^u person who buys a^u' book on amazon.com and has a^u'' credit card uses it_u'' to pay for it_u'. (mixed weak & strong donkey sentences)
2. #Every^u farmer who owns a^u'donkey gathers it_u' around the fire at night. (singular donkey anaphora and collective predicates)
3. Every^u parent who gives a^u' balloon to two^u'' boys expects them_u'' to end up fighting (each other) for it_u'. (multiple singular and plural donkey anaphora and collective predicates)
4. Everybody^u who bought two^u' sage plants here bought seven^u'' others along with them_u'. (plural sage plant examples)
5. Most^u house-elves who fall in love with a^u' witch buy her_u' an^u'' alligator purse. (proportions)
6. There is a^u doctor in London and he_u is Welsh. (uniqueness effects in non-quantificational contexts)
7. Every^u man who has a^u' son wills him_u' all his money. (uniqueness effects and donkey anaphora)
8. No^u man who had a^u' credit card failed to use it_u'. (strong donkey readings with no)
9. Every^u person who had a^u' dime in his pocket refused to put it_u' in the meter. (strong readings for 'dime' examples with nuclear scope negation)
10. Every^u company that hired a^u' Moldavian man, but no^u'' company that hired a^u' Transylvanian man promoted him_u'
within two weeks of hiring. (mixed weak & strong donkey sentences with a single donkey pronoun)
11. Every^u''' man who introduced a^u friend to me^u' thought we_u+u'^u'' had something in common. (plural donkey anaphora with split antecedents)
12. Every^u linguist who works on a^u' difficult problem is interested to read most^u'' papers that were written about it_u'. (donkey anaphora and 'exceptional wide scope')