In this chapter, it is argued that reasons stemming from different sources of normativity can be compared and balanced against each other, and that sometimes the all-things-considered verdict about such cases should be a gradualist one. The term extramural gradualism refers to this type of gradualist all-things-considered verdict. Acts that are somewhat normatively right in this extramural sense need not be somewhat morally right. An act can be somewhat right in the extramural sense even if it is morally right simpliciter. It is the conflict between different sources of normativity that triggers a gradualist extramural verdict, not the gradualist properties of the verdict it is based on. However, acts that are somewhat normatively right in the extramural sense may of course be somewhat morally right, or somewhat right with respect to self-interest. It is logically possible to be a gradualist about extramural verdicts but not about other types of verdicts, but considerations that support extramural gradualism also tend to support gradualism about the moral concepts RIGHT and WRONG.

Reference can be done by words defined by type (common nouns), token or individual (proper nouns), or contextually (pronouns). Reference in these three ways is almost always to individuals. The animacy of common noun categories is often relevant for grammatical behavior. Personal pronouns and demonstrative pronouns are defined by properties of the speech act context. Contextual expressions may stand alone for reference or function as modifiers of nouns, i.e. attributives or articles. Articles are defined by two subtle contextual properties, referent status and identifiability. Referent status involves accessibility in discourse or shared knowledge, and, for non-accessible referents, whether they are real or not. Identifiability pertains to whether the referent’s identity is known, or is only identifiable by type. Distribution of pronoun/article uses can be represented as semantic maps on a crosslinguistic conceptual space of functions. Tracking of a referent in discourse is grammatically encoded as often as referent accessibility or identifiability. Finally, reference to a type (generic) reference is possible; strategies are typically recruited from reference to a token.