Abstract: This talk clarifies and reassesses the scope of logical pluralism. I first argue that philosophers of logic often overlook an important distinction between the word ‘valid’, the concept validity, and the property validity. As a result, it is often unclear what the subject matter of logical theories is, and what exactly logical pluralists are pluralist about. With this distinction in mind, I argue that the pluralist proposal advanced by Beall and Restall is best understood as the conjunction of individually plausible but jointly incompatible claims about the concept validity and the word ‘valid’. I then show that other extant forms of pluralism located at the linguistic and conceptual levels initially appear to avoid this tension but ultimately incur important difficulties. I conclude by considering the prospects for a coherent and substantial form of pluralism at the linguistic and conceptual levels.