The debate between advocates of free pragmatic enrichment and those who maintain that any pragmatic contribution to explicature is mediated by a covert linguistic indexical took a new turn with the claim that these covert elements may be optional (Martí, 2006). This prompted the conclusion (Recanati, 2010b) that there is no longer any issue of substance between the two positions, as both involve optional elements of utterance meaning, albeit registered at different representational levels (conceptual or linguistic). We maintain, on the contrary, that the issue remains substantive and we make the case that, for a theory of the processes involved in utterance comprehension, the free pragmatic enrichment account is indispensable. We further argue that the criticism of free enrichment that motivates at least some indexicalist accounts rests on a mistaken assumption that it is the semantic component of the grammar (linguistic competence) that is responsible for delivering truth-conditional content (explicature).

自由务实的丰富主义者和坚持认为对显性的任何务实贡献是由隐性语言索引所调解的人之间的辩论有了新的转折，声称这些隐性元素可能是可选的（Martí，2006）。这就得出了一个结论（Recanati，2010b），两个职位之间不再存在实质性问题，因为这两个职位都涉及话语意义的可选要素，尽管在不同的表征水平（概念或语言）上都有所记录。相反，我们认为这个问题仍然是实质性的，并且我们认为，对于涉及话语理解的过程的理论，免费的实用账户是必不可少的。我们进一步指出，对自由丰富的批评至少会激发一些索引主义者的论述，是基于一个错误的假设，即正是语法的语义成分（语言能力）负责传递真值条件的内容（表述）。