Marlowes Doctor Faustus Analysis Predetermination And Free Will

Marlowes Doctor Faustus Analysis Predetermination And Free Will Sinfield has discussed about Calvinism, underpinning the Elizabethan orthodoxy which would regard Faustus not as damned because he makes a pact with the Devil, but as making a pact with the Devil because he is already damned.(353) He very well portrays the idea that because Faustus got involved in a sin, he was bound to be damned. At another instance his claim, If Faustus doesnt have it, there is nothing he can do. (355) nullifies any possibility of justifying his wrong conduct. At times it cannot be called a Calvinist play as God is exceedingly good in gifts, until the Faustus becomes a victim of his insatiable desire even when God is willing to forgive, if he repents. But Faustus intentionally refuses all the aid and goes down to damnation. Doctrine of Calvinism was on rise in England and under the direction of Puritan theologian. Calvinism means theological first promoted by John Calvin in (150 9-1564 ).He was one of leaders of Protestant reformation. It laid the foundation for reformed theology. Calvinism is contrasted with Lutheranism with which it divided the heritage of the Reformation. Calvinism and Lutheranism both discussed the principles of predestination and justification by faith. Calvinism sees God in all life activity and also in salvation. In first place predestination is not formative principle of Calvinism, it has only logical implications. It is not the root from which Calvinism springs out, but acts as branch of Calvinism. By the end of Act 1, Faustus appears to have made up his mind to sell his soul to the devil in exchange for twenty-four years in which he will live in all voluptuousness (1.3.94). Act 2, Scene 1 opens with another soliloquy in a long soliloquy, Faustus reflects on the most rewarding type of scholarships. He considers law, quoting the Byzantine emperor Justinian, but dismisses the law as too petty, dealing with trivial matters rather than larger ones. Divinity, the study of religion and theology, seems to offer wider vistas, but he quotes from St. Jeromes Bible that all men sin and finds the Bibles assertion that [t]he reward of sin is death an unacceptable doctrine. He then dismisses religion and fixes his mind on magic, which, when properly pursued, he believes will make him a mighty god (1.62). In Act1 Scene1, the lines Thinks thou that I, who saw the face of God, and tasted the eternal joys of heaven, Am not tormented with ten thousand hells in being deprived of everlasting bliss?, establish the fact the Faustus had given up on his fate and believed that he is the master of his own destiny. While the predestination involved a complete dependency on God and advocated for supremacy of Gods free will, Faustus wanted to challenge the sovereignty of God and experiment his own free will. He took a different route in principles other than the natural logic of salvation process professed by his friends and other scholars. He relied on the strength of human effort alone. Faustus had mastered all the subjects he read. This play emphasizes the fact that knowledge when misutilized can lead to destruction. Faustus wanted to study magic instead metaphysics. He gained knowledge through evil. Faustus possessed insatiable thirst for knowledge and fanaticism and showed deep interest in necromancy. Faustus rejected traditional study and turned towards magic and wanted to practice necromancy. He looked forward to the advantages which he would gain as a magician. He was a Renaissance man and experienced inner conflict, when the good angel dissuades him from practicing magic. The evil angel wanted that he should go forward and practice magic. Doctor Faustus is a Christian tragedy as Marlowe has depicted human soul as a battle field. Doctor Faustus is a victim of his conceptions and misconception. As is true throughout the play, however, Marlowe uses Faustuss own words to expose Faustuss blind spots. In his initial speech, for example, Faustus establishes a hierarchy of disciplines by showing which are nobler than others. He does not want merely to protect mens bodies through medicine, nor does he want to protect their property through law. He wants higher things, and so he proceeds on to religion. There, he quotes selectively from the New Testament, picking out only those passages that make Christianity appear in a negative light. He reads that [t]he reward of sin is death, and that [I]f we say we that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and there is no truth in us (1.40-43). The second of these lines comes from the first book of John, but Faustus neglects to read the very next line, which states, If we confess our sins, [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousn ess (1 John 1:9). Thus, through selective quoting, Faustus makes it seem as though religion promises only death and not forgiveness and so he easily rejects religion with a fatalistic What will be, shall be! Divinity, adieu! (1.48). Meanwhile, he uses religious language-as he does throughout the play-to describe the dark world of necromancy that he enters. These metaphysics of magicians / and necromantic books are heavenly (1.49-50), he declares without a trace of irony. Having gone upward from medicine and law to theology, he envisions magic and necromancy as the crowning discipline. Sinfiled as a critic has argued that God is silent on this occasion as he writes, If Faustuss heart is hardened and he cannot repent, who has hardened it? (356). Besides this Faustuss repentance is insincere, and that he consistently fails to repent not because he is suffering from theologically-induced despair, but because he is afraid of the devils and constantly distracted by the frivolous entertainments they stage for him, like the pageant of the seven deadly sins which follows this episode. One could argue as well that the play does represent the Christian God as loving and merciful, and shows human beings to be free to shape their own spiritual destinies. The Good and Evil Angels, after all, seem to give dramatic form to Faustuss freedom to choose: he has a choice between good and evil, and he chooses evil in full knowledge of what the consequences will be. As late as Act 5, Scene 1, the Old Man appears on stage to drive home the availability of Gods mercy if only Faustus will sincerely repent his sins. Looked at from this perspective, it is Faustus and not God who is responsible for the terrible fate that greets him at the close of the play. Conclusively, Marlowe has planned the demise of Faustus in such a way that the argument, There are two traps in the play. One is set by God for Dr.Faustus; the other is set by Marlowe, for God. (361) holds true. Doctor Faustus is an Elizabethan tragedy. The play deals with the will of God and the hero defies it. The main focus is on human will. Faustus brings tragedy for himself. Faustus decides to follow the path as told by Valdes and Cornelius and practices black magic. Faustus himself calls Mephistopheles. This can be inferred as a fact supporting predestination from the lines, Mephistopheless intervention would be part of Faustuss punishment within the divine predestination.(354)Out of pride Faustus seeks world of profit, delight and power. Faustus signs pact with Mephistopheles to enjoy worldly pleasure. In the Prologue and through the first chorus his doom is before us in clear and emphatic terms. We are that swollen with pride in his attainments , he forgets about salvation. (354) Mephistopheles by responding to Faustus demands, gives answers on Hell, makes him invisible so that he can irritate Pope who was at a feast in the company of the Cardinal of Lorraine. So it was destined by God to put Mephistopheles to make full use of pride and bringing damnation and ultimately death of Faustus. This is evident from Sinfields discussion on point of having a Good Angel as, The role of the Good Angel is to tell Faustus what he ought to do but cannot, so that he will be unable to claim ignorance when God taxes him with wickedness. Sinfield raises the possibility that the play was written to embarrass Protestant doctrine.(358) He also wrote If Faustus was guided by Mephistopheles, the decision was Gods. For Protestant thought could not tolerate devils wandering around the world at whim: God does not just allow their activities, he contracts out tasks to them. There exists many contradictions in the play but eventually one may feel as imperfections exist in human so why not in a character of a play. The ultimate authority to decide lies in the hands of the readers. Last not the least Sinfields thought substantial texts are in principle likely to be written across ideological faultlines because that is the most interesting kind of writing; they may well not be susceptible to any decisive reading. (359) is more convincing.

Jamess Pragmatism and Platos Sophistes Essay -- Pragmatism Sophistes

James's Pragmatism and Plato's Sophistes ABSTRACT: In the first chapter of Pragmatism, William James outlines two philosophical temperaments. He argues that though one's temperament modifies one's way of philosophizing, its presence is seldom recognized. This statement by James led me to Plato's Sophistes, especially the relationship between temperament and being. Although Plato describes certain temperaments, I hold that the main topic is being. The ancients restricted All to real being, e.g., the tangible or the immovable. This reading of the Sophistes puts a different face on the first chapter of Pragmatism. However, if we allow James to speak to present-day philosophers as well as his turn of the century audience, then this reading of the Sophistes will clarify the current philosophical temperament. Neither James nor the contemporary philosopher is satisfied with any restriction on All; for this reason, both lack interest in being. Being, once the richest word, no longer satisfies the philosopher's greedy temperament. Introduction In the first chapter of Pragmatism (2) William James speaks about a rather unusual aspect of philosophy. He gives an outline of two prevailing temperaments in philosophy. 'Temperament', he argues, '...is no conventionally recognized reason [in philosophy]... Yet [a professional philosopher's] temperament really gives him a stronger bias than any of his more strictly premises. ... Yet in the forum he can make no claim, on the bare ground of his temperament, to superior discernment or authority.' (3) James argues that, although one's temperament modifies one's way of philosophizing, its presence is seldom recognized. This statement by James prompted me to the reading of part of Pl... ... 1979) (5) The Greek words on and ousia are both translated as real, real being or reality. (6) Not surprisingly, in the Sophistes as in Pragmatism the fight between the temperaments is claimed to be of all times. (7) His name is not mentioned in the dialogue. (8) Cf. Apology 23c, Theaetetus 168a. (9) Cf. 216a-c, 224e-226a, 233a, 249cd, 253a-254b, 259d. (10) Cf. ai)sxu/vh 230d, ai)sxu/nein (247bc) (11) J. Souilhà ©, Étude sur le terme ΔÎ ¥ÃŽ ÃŽâ€˜ÃŽÅ"IÃŽ £ dans les dialogues de Platon (Paris: Librairie Fà ©lix Alcon, 1919) cf. p. 36, 112, 154 ff.. (12) `Real being ... is always in the same unchanging state ....' (248a) (13) Cf. 258c-259b. (14) W. James, Some Problems of Philosophy: A beginning of an Introduction to Philosophy (New York: Longmans, Green adn Co., 1924) (15) James (1924), p. 37 (16) James (1924), p. 46

Lenin’s Russia Essay

1. The painting shows that Lenin is pleased to be back in Russia. He has his hand up waving at the crowd. Lenin looks happy and he looks pleased to be back. He also looks to be pleased by the way that the crowd are reacting to his return. The crowd are happy to have Lenin back. The people’s faces are all looking at him and they are all waving back at him. There are people playing musical instruments at what looks like a celebration to welcome him back. They are celebrating the return of Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov, who later changed his name to Lenin, from exile in Finland. The people are pleased to see Lenin and they would therefore be the people that agree with Lenin and his ideas and decisions. The crowd is not just townspeople that have gone to meet Lenin. There are men there with bullets over their shoulders. These people are soldiers that agreed with Lenin’s ideas. They had some force with their guns and this means that Lenin had some force. All of these townspeople see Lenin as a leader for Russia that is why they are there. This is not a true reflection over all of Russia. This source is very inaccurate as it is painting and could have been a forgery to make Lenin look popular and make it look like there are a lot of people there. 2. The painting does show that Lenin was popular in Finland station, which is in Russia like Waterloo station is in London, but this is not a true reflection over the whole of Russia. The people that were at Finland station are clearly pleased to have him back but in other parts of Russia this was not the case. Lenin was only popular with the people that supported communism and supported Bolshevik rule. These were known as the reds and the opposition was known as the whites due to the color of their uniforms that their armies wore. It is clear that this painting does not show the feeling over the rest of Russia because the civil war came. This tells us that Lenin was not popular all over Russia and he had opposition in the whites that he fought in the civil war. This was not only the case in Russia but also all over the world. When the civil war started Lenin and the reds didn’t have any outside allies while the Americans, the French and the British supported the whites. These countries wanted to help the whites against Lenin because Lenin had pulled Russia out of the First World War before it had ended. They were bitter about it and so they helped fight against him. In conclusion Lenin was popular and respected in certain areas of Russia like Finland station but across the rest of Russia and the World he was not admired or acclaimed. Source B 3. Each photograph has Lenin on the left standing on a podium talking to the crowd that are surrounding him. On the first photograph Lenin has two men standing to his right on the stairs. These men are Trotsky and Kamenev who were the right hand men to Lenin. In the second photo Lenin is again standing on the podium but in this photo there is no Trotsky or Kamenev, photographic experts have removed Trotsky and Kamenev. 4. These pictures are so different because in the first one Lenin is accompanied by two men, Trotsky and Kamenev but in the second picture they have disappeared from the image. These pictures were used as propaganda pictures by Stalin after the death of Lenin to inform the people that Trotsky and Kamenev were not anymore involved with Stalin. It is as if they have disappeared. Trotsky was the man behind the red army. He was the man that gained a great victory in the civil war and saved the Revolution. Trotsky would have been the man to take over from Lenin after his death but due to the fact he was clever he was hated by the other Communist leaders and was never supported, so a man that was lower down in rank was given the job, Joseph Stalin. Stalin and the other communist leaders hated Trotsky. He was removed from any position of power in the country so that he couldn’t cause any problem for Stalin. Stalin took power with Zinovliev and Kamenev after Lenin’s death. They accused Trotsky of trying to split the communist party and take power for himself. No one defended Trotsky. After Trotsky had all of his positions of power removed he was exiled internally and then in 1929 Leon Trotsky was forced out of Russia and was exiled to Mexico. Once Stalin had taken power away from Trotsky before he was exiled, Stalin turned on Kamenev and Zinoviev. They were becoming worried and in 1926 they joined Trotsky in a United Opposition to Stalin’s policies. Stalin got his supporters to help him and both were sacked from their party and government positions. They were both allowed back into the party in 1928 but into positions with no power. So Stalin had ended up the solitary leader of Soviet Union. This trouble had left him very apprehensive of his colleagues. Stalin used the two photographs to show that Trotsky and Kamenev had fallen from their days of power when Lenin was alive and in charge. Source C 5. (i) Lenin is sweeping the entire world of Royalty, Aristocratic and Religious people. Lenin was against rich and powerful people and so that is why he is sweeping them off the globe. The people he is targeting are all the rich people. The man standing on top of the globe is Lenin. The first two men to his right of Lenin, with crowns on, look to be some kind of royalty. The person in the bottom left of the picture looks like an Orthodox Russian Church member. The man in the bottom right of the cartoon looks like a rich aristocrat. Lenin is using a broom and sweeping because that is traditionally associated with workers and not the rich. It is signifying the fight back of the workers to show that Lenin is on the workers side and that they will fight against the rich. 5. (ii) The Revolution of March 1917 that overthrew the tsarist regime caught Lenin by surprise, but he managed to secure passage through Germany in a sealed train. His dramatic arrival in Petrograd occurred one month after rebellious workers and soldiers had toppled the tsar. The Bolsheviks, including Joseph Stalin, had agreed with the deference the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies showed to the provisional government. Lenin immediately refused this line of policy. In his â€Å"April Theses† he argued that only the Soviet could respond to the hopes and needs of Russia’s workers and peasants. Under the slogan â€Å"All Power to the Soviets†, the Bolshevik party conference accepted Lenin’s programme. After an unsuccessful workers’ uprising in July, Lenin spent August and September 1917 in Finland, hiding from the provisional government. There, he formulated his concepts of a socialist government. He also bombarded the party’s Central Committee with demands for an armed uprising in the capital. His plan was finally accepted; it was put into effect on November 7th. A few days after the November Revolution, Lenin was elected head of government. He acted sensibly to consolidate the power of the new Soviet state. His main concern was the protection of the Revolution and Soviet power against enemies both abroad and at home. In line with these practical considerations Lenin accepted the heavy German terms for the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty. Lenin took power of Russia from the provisional government that didn’t put up that much of a fight at all to stop him from taking over. Lenin took power after the Tsar had fallen and the country was in disarray after the First World War. Lenin took power after being in exile from Russia so he hadn’t seen all of the effects that the war had on Russia. Source D 6. (i) Robert Lansing had a bad attitude towards the Russian revolution. He didn’t think that Russia could survive after the takeover by the Bolsheviks in the civil war. Lansing believed that the revolution would end in ‘brutality and destruction of life’. Lansing compares the Russian revolution with the French revolution. He says that before the French revolution France had a legal system and a government, Russia possesses neither. This means that he didn’t think that they would be capable of running the country. Lansing says that the country wouldn’t end up further developed. Which indicates that there is no point in fighting. To stop the problem they should get a government and a legal system. To advance his speech he hammers home his point that there is no authority or control. He continues to say that the country is full of anarchy and violence. He gives a comparison to a cauldron as though it is waiting to overflow, it is boiling up nicely. Finally he thinks of the people of Russia and how they will be affected by the war. He gives the sense that he feels sorry for the things that will happen to them. Robert Lansing’s attitude was that Russia would be worse off if the Bolsheviks took control of all Russia. His view is not necessarily correct, as Robert Lansing has biased opinion due to the fact that he was the US Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He has a bad attitude towards Russia because they pulled out of the First World War. The Americans would be bitter and wouldn’t support anything that the Russians do. 6. (ii) When Robert Lansing said the words ‘Russian Terror’ he was referring to the pain that Russian people would feel. By terror he means that blood will be shed and life will be lost. He thinks that the death rate and property destruction will be higher than the French Revolution. He is saying that people have a hard time ahead of them if they live in Russia. Source E 7. This source comes from Winston Churchill at the time when he was the British Secretary of War and Air. Churchill has a very definite opinion of the Bolsheviks and there ideas, he doesn’t support them at all. You can tell from the first sentence he said ‘the Bolshevik Tyranny is the worst’. This is a very hard statement to take in. This means that a Tyrant ran the Bolshevik party so Churchill is calling Lenin a Tyrant and Churchill was calling Lenin cruel. He was calling the Bolshevik party cruel. This is a statement that sets out from the start that he doesn’t support the Bolsheviks. In the next sentence Churchill states that the things that had been done in Russia by Lenin and Trotsky are far worst than anything that the Kaiser of Germany did. To compare Trotsky and Lenin to the Kaiser is a very strong statement, as he was not at all liked by anyone in Germany. He was hurting everyone. Churchill doesn’t say that they are equal to the Kaiser but that they are worst than him. Churchill view on Russia would be biased because he is British and he still wouldn’t be too happy because Russia pulled out of the First World War. Churchill has more reason to be infuriated than most British people as he was in charge of Britain’s war effort. Source F 8. This source doesn’t show that the Bolshevik government was successful. They didn’t do the job that they set out to do which was to help the working class people. This source is bound to be accurate as it out of a history textbook it will be accurate because it is looking back on the incident and not looking forward like source D and E the book will also not have biased opinion. The first line says that Russian people suffered terribly in the civil war. This proves that Robert Lansing and Winston Churchill were correct with their prediction. Both said that the Russian people would suffer terribly and both were right. The Bolshevik government did not handle the civil war at all well. This source gives us some facts to back the suggestion that the government was not successful. The source tells us the economy collapsed. This meant that money was worthless. So the Bolsheviks didn’t mange to keep the money useable. The fact that industrial production had gone down means that they are going backwards and not improving the country, so Lansing was right when he said that this wasn’t the way to go. The civil war wasn’t killing as much as the diseases were which meant that innocent people were dying not just soldiers. The Bolsheviks were not fighting for their idea of workers, they were killing them instead. The communist was now becoming a dictatorship. This means that Churchill was right in his analysis comparing the Bolsheviks to the Kaiser who was a dictator. The source says that the Bolsheviks were losing support as well. This means that they were not successful at all. They didn’t have success at all from the civil war. Summary 9. Source A This source gives us a false sense of the popularity of Lenin in Russia. This painting is only of Finland station and does not give a good representation of the rest Russia. Lenin is proven not to liked all over Russia because there is the civil war and this means that one opposition party doesn’t like Lenin so this source is only a good indication as to where Lenin is liked. You can tell that he is liked at Finland station and the surrounding area. We do not know about the rest of the country but he is certainly liked in is one area. This source does not give us an accurate sense of Lenin’s popularity. This source could also be a forgery if it were a photograph it would be true but a painting can easily be made up. You cannot be certain if this is the true event that happened. Source B This source was used as propaganda for Stalin after Lenin’s death. These sources real point is the fact that Trotsky and Kamenev have fallen from the limelight, but the source can also be used to look at the popularity of Lenin and the message he was giving out to the people of Russia. In both pictures you can see the crowd covering the whole of the area. There are no gaps anywhere. This shows that Lenin was popular at this time and that people did listen to him. As I have already said this sources main point that Trotsky and Kamenev have gone but the photo can give other information. You can only see behind Lenin at the number of people but I would imagine that in front of him there would be more people as his voice would be projected that way. So this means there would be about triple the amount of people in photograph listening to Lenin. That may seem like a lot but over the whole of Russia it is small amount considering the vast size that is Russia. We are not told where this is and so might in an area where Lenin is popular like Finland station. You can tell that this event actually happened as it a photograph not a painting like the source before. Source C Source C is a political cartoon that is aiming to put across the message that Lenin is working with the working class. Lenin has the broom and is sweeping because that is associated with the working class people. He is sweeping the upper class and privileged people off of the world and taking over. If this cartoon were a true reflection on the job that Lenin was doing, you would assume that he would be popular with working class but not so the upper class people whom he wants to get rid of. This is not the case. The upper classes, rich people, were not impressed with Lenin trying to get rid of them. So he didn’t really become very popular with them. They didn’t like him and because they owned massive pasts of Russia this was a problem. This cartoon would have won some votes with the lower and working class the fact that he was trying to make it an even playing field for all. Source D This cannot really tell us much about the situation in Russia but it does give us a global sense of the feelings towards Lenin and his government. The first couple of lines give us a feel for what the Russian people would be in for. If the things Robert Lansing predicted happen then Lenin and his government would not be popular in Russia. The mass deaths would not go down well with the people in Russia. This did come true and so Lenin government didn’t look good. This source tells that the government didn’t have a lot of friends outside of the country. Lansing was an American and they were a major power but Lenin didn’t have their support as you can see from this statement. The statement written by Robert Lansing is a biased account though as the Americans were fighting the First World War with Russia until they pulled out and so there would be some bitterness between the two countries. Source E This source came from Winston Churchill. This again tells that Lenin was not popular outside of Russia. It gives a comparison to the Kaiser. If Lenin were thought of like the Kaiser then he would be hated like the Kaiser. Churchill gives a good comparison but his opinion is biased and should be not be used as fact it is only an opinion. Source F The final source gives reasons why Lenin was unpopular. This source is taken from a textbook and therefore will be correct. It gives facts why Lenin was not popular; economic collapse, Industrial production had dropped by 20 per cent of the level it was in 1913, harvest produced only 60 per cent of the normal amount and during the civil war famine and disease caused 8 million deaths. These facts give hard evidence why the Russian people have cause to not like Lenin. All of these sources tell us that Lenin and the Bolsheviks popularity changed over the time they were in power. If we can trust the early sources you would believe that he was popular. In 1917 Lenin would have been popular as the country was in disarray and would have supported any leader. However as his time went on the true view of Lenin came out. Towards 1924 he started to go down hill and wasn’t as respected by the people. When source F gives the final facts of what was happening it is easy to say that Lenin was not as successful as first thought. Lenin early high popularity dropped towards the end of his time to be hated by the people of Russia.

Perlocutionary Acts Definition and Examples

In speech-act theory, a perlocutionary act is an action or state of mind brought about by, or as a consequence of, saying something. It is also known as  a perlocutionary effect. The distinction between the illocutionary act and the  perlocutionary act is  important, says Ruth M. Kempson: The  perlocutionary act is  the consequent effect on the hearer which the speaker intends should follow from his utterance. Kempson offers this summary of the three interrelated speech acts originally presented by John L. Austin in How to Do Things With Words published in 1962: A speaker utters sentences with a particular meaning (locutionary act), and with a particular force (illocutionary act), in order to achieve a certain effect on the hearer (perlocutionary act). Examples and Observations A. P. Martinich, in his book, Communication and Reference, defines a perlocutionary act as follows: Intuitively, a perlocutionary act is an act performed by saying something, and not in saying something. Persuading, angering, inciting, comforting and inspiring are often perlocutionary acts; but they would never begin an answer to the question What did he say? Perlocutionary acts, in contrast with locutionary and illocutionary acts, which are governed by conventions, are not conventional but natural acts (Austin [1955], p. 121). Persuading, angering, inciting, etc. cause physiological changes in the audience, either in their states or behavior; conventional acts do not. An Example of a Perlocutionary Effect Nicholas Allott gives this view of a perlocutionary act in his book, Key Terms in Pragmatics: Consider a negotiation with a hostage-taker under siege. The police negotiator says: If you release the children, well allow the press to publish your demands. In making that utterance she has offered a deal (illocutionary act).  Suppose the  hostage-taker accepts the deal  and as a consequence releases the children. In that case, we can say that by making the utterance, the negotiator brought about the release of the children, or in more technical terms, that this was a perlocutionary effect of the utterance. Shouting Fire In her book, Speaking Back: The Free Speech Versus Hate Speech Debate, Katharine Gelber explains the effect of shouting fire in a crowded venue: In the perlocutionary instance, an act is performed by saying something. For example, if someone shouts fire and by that act causes people to exit a building which they believe to be on fire, they have performed the perlocutionary act of convincing other people to exit the building....In another example, if a jury foreperson declares guilty in a courtroom in which an accused person sits, the illocutionary act of declaring a person guilty of a crime has been undertaken. The perlocutionary act related to that illocution is that, in reasonable circumstances, the accused person would be convinced that they were to be led from the courtroom into a jail cell. Perlocutionary acts are acts intrinsically related to the illocutionary act which precedes them, but discrete and able to be differentiated from the illocutionary act. The Accordion Effect Marina Sbisà  , in an essay titled, Locution, Illocution, Perlocution, notes why perlocution can have a surprising effect: Perlocution has no upper border: any consequential effect of a speech act may be considered as perlocutionary. If breaking news surprises you so that you trip and fall, my announcement has not only been believed true by you (which is already a perlocutionary effect) and thus surprised you, but has also made you trip. fall, and (say) injure your ankle. This aspect of the so-called accordion effect concerning actions and speech actions in particular (see Austin 1975: 110-115; Feinberg 1964) meets general consent, apart from those speech-act theorists who prefer to limit the notion of perlocutionary effect to intended perlocutionary effects.... Sources Allott, Nicholas. Key Terms in Pragmatics. Continuum, 2011.Gelber, Katharine. Speaking Back: The Free Speech Versus Hate Speech Debate. John Benjamins, 2002.Martinich, A. P.  Communication and Reference. Walter de Gruyter, 1984.Sbisà  , Marina. Locution, Illocution, Perlocution in Pragmatics of Speech Actions, ed. by  Marina Sbisà   and Ken Turner. Walter de Gruyter, 2013.