Dependent plurals and plural meaning

Bare plural arguments (dogs) behave in ways that quantified plurals (some dogs) do not. For instance, while the sentence John owns dogs implies that John owns more than one dog, its negation John does not own dogs does not mean “John does not own more than one dog”, but rather “John does not own a dog”. A second puzzling behavior is known as the dependent plural reading; when in the scope of another plural, the “more than one” meaning of the plural is not distributed over, but the existential force of the plural is. For example, My friends attend good schools requires that each of my friends attend one good school, not more, while at the same time being inappropriate if all my friends attend the same school. This dissertation shows that both these phenomena, and others, arise from the same cause. Namely, the plural noun itself does not assert ‘more than one’, but rather the plural denotes a predicate that is number neutral (unspecified for cardinality). The ‘more than one’ meaning arises as an scalar implicature. I propose a theory that derives this implicature, based on two factors. The first is that, as is well-known, the domain of number neutral predicates is a superset of the domain of atomic predicates. However, this scalar implicature is insufficient to derive an implicature, as the entailments associated with distributivity mean that the fact that the scalar relationship between plural and singular predicates does not result in a scalar relationship