The problem posed by indirect speech acts is the problem of how it is possible for the speaker to say one thing and mean that but also to mean something else.

There is no success or failure in Nature.

"Akrasia" [weakness of will] in rational beings is as common as wine in France.

Many people mistakenly suppose that the essence of consciousness is that of a control mechanism

I will argue that in the literal sense the programmed computer understands what the car and the adding machine understand, namely, exactly nothing.

It seemed to a number of philosophers of language, myself included, that we should attempt to achieve a unification of Chomsky's syntax, with the results of the researches that were going on in semantics and pragmatics. I believe that this effort has proven to be a failure. Though Chomsky did indeed revolutionize the subject of linguistics, it is not at all clear, at the end the century, what the solid results of this revolution are. As far as I can tell there is not a single rule of syntax that all, or even most, competent linguists are prepared to agree is a rule.

Berkeley had a liberal element in the student body who tended to be quite active. I think that's in general a feature of intellectually active places.