In this paper, I discuss what the consequences are of Carnap’s emphasis on frameworks, and on the distinction between internal and external questions, for questions about logic and rationality. Central to the discussion is a distinction between different interpretations of the talk of frameworks. I defend my interpretation of Carnap as what I call a language pluralist from recent criticisms. I further criticize recent work by Florian Steinberger, and argue that a puzzle which Steinberger thinks emanates from Carnap’s emphasis on frameworks is misconceived. Emphasis on frameworks can indeed be used to raise a deep puzzle regarding rationality, but not a puzzle of the kind Steinberger talks about.