 On the assumption that examples like  (10)  should receive a dynamic treatment (see the earlier remark on alternative explanations and Nouwen, forthcoming, for discussion), the conclusion can only be that universal quantifiers should not be given a static interpretation. The next question is then what kind of interpretation is appropriate, and how this interpretation can distinguish the infelicitous case of anaphora in  (9)  from the case in  (10).  One option would be to distinguish between the values assigned to the variables that are bound by the quantifier in its scope and the value assigned to that variable outside the scope of the quantifier. (See, for instance, Kamp and Reyle 1993 for such a strategy and Nouwen 2007 for discussion.) In order to account for  (10),  one would have the variable occurrences bound by the quantifier in the first sentence of  (10)  range over individual boys, while that variable gets assigned the plurality of all boys outside the quantifier’s scope (i.e. in the second sentence). As van den Berg (1996) was the first to show, however, such a solution only gets there half-way. In discourse, pronouns do not just have access to pluralities associated to quantifiers, but also to the relations such quantifiers are engaged in. For instance, in the second sentence of  (11)  the pronoun \(it\) covaries with the quantification over the boys in the subject in such a way that the second sentence is understood to mean that each boy submitted the paper that \(he\) wrote (cf. van den Berg 1996; Krifka 1996; Nouwen 2003; Brasoveanu 2007, 2008).