Philosophers before Austin and even in his contemporary times unanimously agreed that a proposition can be judged as either true or false, but cannot be judged as either 'good' or 'bad'. It is so because 'good' and 'bad' can be used when we judge certain actions or performances. Thus they are concerned about two sorts of propositions (statements); 'indicative' (descriptive) statements and moral statements. Indicative statements are those which assert the facts of the world, and by applying the correspondence theory we can judge these statements as either true or false. If the fact that the statement is stating about is found in the phenomenal world then the statement is judged as true, otherwise it is judged as false. On the other hand, a moral statement is one that delineates the action(s) performed by an individual or a group. Depending on the societal norms, conditions, and contexts, an action is judged as either good or bad. If a society has no objection to an action performed by an individual or a group and applause it, then it is treated as good, otherwise it is treated as bad.

The examples of indicative statement are:

1. The sky is blue.
2. The horse is running.
3. I order you to open the door.
4. I promise to return you the notebook.

In these statements, we describe the facts that are linked up with states of affairs. So by principle, all these sentences can be judged as either true or false. But there are certain cases when someone utters these sentences, out of all some of them can't be considered as indicative sentences. The reason is language is governed by certain rules, where all sorts of mode of speech do not require indicative sentences to convey the state of affairs of the world. Some other varieties of linguistic expressions are also found in the language system, such as;

1. Snow is white.
2. Snow is black.
3. There is no snow in the Jupiter.
4. God is good.
5. Squares are not circles.