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. Everyu person who buys au' book on and has au'' credit card uses itu'' to pay for itu'. (mixed weak & strong donkey sentences)
2. #Everyu farmer who owns au'donkey gathers itu' around the fire at night. (singular donkey anaphora and collective predicates)
3. Everyu parent who gives au' balloon to twou'' boys expects themu'' to end up fighting (each other) for itu'. (multiple singular and plural donkey anaphora and collective predicates)
4. Everybodyu who bought twou' sage plants here bought seven
u'' others along with themu'. (plural sage plant examples)
5. Most
u house-elves who fall in love with au' witch buy heru' anu'' alligator purse. (proportions)
6. There is a
u doctor in London and heu is Welsh. (uniqueness effects in non-quantificational contexts)
7. Everyu man who has au' son wills himu' all his money. (uniqueness effects and donkey anaphora)
8. No
u man who had au' credit card failed to use itu'. (strong donkey readings with no)
9. Every
u person who had au' dime in his pocket refused to put itu' in the meter. (strong readings for 'dime' examples with nuclear scope negation)
10. Everyu company that hired au' Moldavian man, but nou'' company that hired au' Transylvanian man promoted himu'
within two weeks of hiring. (mixed weak & strong donkey sentences with a single donkey pronoun)
11. Everyu''' man who introduced au friend to meu' thought weu+u'u'' had something in common. (plural donkey anaphora with split antecedents)
12. Everyu linguist who works on au' difficult problem is interested to read mostu'' papers that were written about itu'. (donkey anaphora and 'exceptional wide scope')