Therefore, when examining perlocutionary acts, the effect on the hearer or reader is emphasized.
2.
Eliciting an answer is an example of what Austin calls a " perlocutionary act ", an act performed " by " saying something.
3.
In the theory of speech acts, attention has especially focused on the illocutionary act, much less on the locutionary and perlocutionary act, and only rarely on the subdivision of the locution into phone, pheme and rheme.
4.
On the other hand, with a perlocutionary act, the object of the utterance has not taken place unless the hearer deems it so for example, if one utters, " I hereby insult you, " or " I hereby persuade you, " one would not assume an insult has necessarily occurred, nor persuasion has necessarily taken place, unless the hearer were suitably offended or persuaded by the utterance.
5.
It is also often emphasised that Austin introduced the illocutionary act by means of a contrast with other kinds of acts or aspects of acting : the illocutionary act, he says, is an act performed " in " saying something, as contrasted with a locutionary act, the act " of " saying something, and also contrasted with a perlocutionary act, an act performed " by " saying something.
6.
One way to think about the difference between an illocutionary act ( e . g ., a declaration, command, or a promise ), and a perlocutionary act ( e . g ., an insult or a persuasion attempt ) is to note how in the former case, by uttering the object for example, " I hereby declare, " or " I command, " or " I hereby promise you " the act has taken place.
मोबाइल