The debate between literalism and contextualism bears on the (in-)existence of ‘free' pragmatic processes, i.e. pragmatic processes of interpretation which contribute to shaping intuitive truth-conditional content without being mandated by anything in the sentence itself. In his new book John Collins defends the contextualist position. He focusses on so-called ‘unarticulated constituents' (e.g. the unmentioned location of rain in a statement like ‘It is raining’) and argues against the idea that the existence of certain bound readings for the implicit component entails (...) the presence of a covert variable in the syntax to which the alleged unarticulated constituent is assigned as semantic value. In the absence of properly syntactic evidence, Collins says, 'judgments about semantic readings are invariably amenable to a pragmatic explanation'. In a recent paper, however, Paul Elbourne offers the sort of evidence which Collins says would be needed to support the literalist position. On Collins' behalf, I discuss, and rebut, the evidence offered by Elbourne. In the last section, I argue against Collins that optionality is a better criterion than unarticulatedness for establishing that a given meaning component results from a free pragmatic process. (shrink)