C. claims that the notion of a perlocution needs some distinctions not drawn by Austin, and that these distinctions will make it clear that at least some perlocutions are intimately enough related to illocutions to deserve as much philosophical attention. He distinguishes between direct and indirect perlocutions; the indirect ones are always unassociated whereas the direct ones can be either unassociated or associated (i.e. associated with the illocution in question). Perlocutions of the direct associated type are said to be relevant to the theory of speech acts.