In this presentation, I will review some papers relevant to the issue. In Chierchia's 1995 monograph, "Dynamics of Meaning", he regards anaphora across inaccessible domains as evidence to motivate the use of E-type pronouns in his theory. The sentences below are examples he actually uses in the monograph: a. Every man excepet John gave his paycheck(i) to his wife. John gave it(i) to his mistress. b. Morrill Hall doesn't have a bathroom(i) or it(i) is in a funny place. c. It is not true that John doesn't have a car(i). It(i) is parked outside. d. John doesn't have a car(i) anymore. He sold it(i) last month. I'm planning to argue that three out of the four above, namely those that are coindexed with an indefinite within the scope of negation, are not E-type pronouns. Instead, I will show that they can be interpreted as variables finally bound by a dynamic existential quantifier offered by the interpretation of the indefinite.