While Austin's distinction between the locutionary, the illocutionary and the perlocutionary acts has been cited, used, criticized and adjusted by many, attention has rarely been paid to its relationship with the notion of action. But tacit assumptions about what an action is and whether acts are actions are far from irrelevant to its understanding and interpretation. The main aim of this paper is to explore what notion of action Austin intended to apply to locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts.