 We typically interpret the unmarked (3) as meaning stereotypical killing (on purpose), while the marked (4) suggests that John killed the sheriff in a more indirect way, maybe unintentionally. Blutner (1998, 2000) shows that this can be accounted for in Bi-OT. Take \(i_{st}\) to be the more plausible interpretation where John killed the sheriff in the stereotypical way, while \(i_{\neg st}\) is the interpretation where John caused the sheriff’s death in an unusual way. Because (3) is less complex than (4), and \(i_{st}\) is the more stereotypical interpretation compatible with the semantic meaning of (3), it is predicted that (3) is interpreted as \(i_{st}\). Thus, in terms of his notion of strong optimality, i.e., optimality for both speaker and hearer, Blutner can account for the intuition that sentences typically get the most plausible, or stereotypical, interpretation. In terms of this notion of optimality, however, Blutner is not able yet to explain how the more complex form (4) can have an interpretation at all, in particular, why it will be interpreted as non-stereotypical killing. The reason is that on the assumption that (4) has the same semantic meaning as (3), the stereotypical interpretation would be hearer-optimal not only for (3), but also for (4).