Anna Nizegorodcew
What Can Relevance Theory Tell EFL Teachers
RELEVANCE THEORY APPLIED TO THE L2 CLASSROOM
I believe that some notions from relevance theory are useful in elu
cidating L2 classroom communicative activities, and in particular, L2 teachers’ and learners’ uses of LI and L2 (c.f. Nizegorodcew 1999; 2001). Sperber and Wilson (1995) asked fundamental ques
tions — why we pay attention to, process and act upon particular pieces of information in communicative input. According to Sper
ber and Wilson, relevance is a property of inputs to an individ
ual’s cognitive processes. Inputs are relevant when they produce enough contextual effects for the least processing effort. In everyday language we tend to say that we pay attention to something be
cause it is relevant. In the relevance-theoretic perspective we call something relevant because we pay attention to it. It seems that paying attention is also a crucial notion in L2 classroom learning.
In relevance theory, contextual effects are achieved when newly presented information interacts with a context of existing assumptions brought to bear on the interpretation of an utterance.
In order to understand an utterance the hearer has to arrive at contextual assumptions on the basis of his/her present knowledge.
According to Sperber and Wilson, the hearer interprets the ut
terance he/she has heard following the rationality principle, which
142 Anna Nizegorodcew
states that the first acceptable interpretation is the only acceptable interpretation.
If somebody asks, “Where do you live?”, the hearer interprets this question engaging his/her whole cognitive environment, that is all the assumptions he/she has about the medium (the language in which the message has been conveyed, the person who has asked the question and the circumstances in which the question has been asked). If the hearer assumes that the speaker knows the address, the first (and only) acceptable interpretation will be, “You know where I live,” rather than telling his/her precise address. If, how
ever, the question is asked in the L2 classroom during a role play activity, the learner will assume that the question refers to the per
son whose role he/she plays, and will answer accordingly, giving an imaginary address.
Relevance makes information worth processing. Relevant in
formation is efficient in the sense that it helps an individual in reaching his/her cognitive goal with the smallest possible expen
diture of energy. The process, according to Sperber and Wilson, is automatic. All human beings automatically aim for the most effi
cient information processing, that is why the information they pay attention to in the input must be relevant.
In L2 classroom discourse there are two major communi
cation conflicts: one between focus on L2 accuracy and L2 flu
ency, and the other between focus on communicating in the target language and communicating about the target language, with the third option, communicating about communicating, that is metacommunication. Since, according to relevance the
ory, both teachers and learners aim at the most efficient infor
mation processing, they must be able to switch their attention from one focus to the other, so that the process requires less en
ergy.
In the light of relevance theory, in beginner and pre
intermediate stages of L2 learning, when language forms (sounds
142 Anna Nizegorodcew
states that the first acceptable interpretation is the only acceptable interpretation.
If somebody asks, “Where do you live?”, the hearer interprets this question engaging his/her whole cognitive environment, that is all the assumptions he/she has about the medium (the language in which the message has been conveyed, the person who has asked the question and the circumstances in which the question has been asked). If the hearer assumes that the speaker knows the address, the first (and only) acceptable interpretation will be, “You know where I live,” rather than telling his/her precise address. If, how
ever, the question is asked in the L2 classroom during a role play activity, the learner will assume that the question refers to the per
son whose role he/she plays, and will answer accordingly, giving an imaginary address.
Relevance makes information worth processing. Relevant in
formation is efficient in the sense that it helps an individual in reaching his/her cognitive goal with the smallest possible expen
diture of energy. The process, according to Sperber and Wilson, is automatic. All human beings automatically aim for the most effi
cient information processing, that is why the information they pay attention to in the input must be relevant.
In L2 classroom discourse there are two major communi
cation conflicts: one between focus on L2 accuracy and L2 flu
ency, and the other between focus on communicating in the target language and communicating about the target language, with the third option, communicating about communicating, that is metacommunication. Since, according to relevance the
ory, both teachers and learners aim at the most efficient infor
mation processing, they must be able to switch their attention from one focus to the other, so that the process requires less en
ergy.
In the light of relevance theory, in beginner and pre
intermediate stages of L2 learning, when language forms (sounds,
What Can Relevance Theory Tell EFL Teachers 143
vocabulary, structures) have not been automated yet, simultaneous focus on accuracy and fluency requires an increased expenditure of energy. If the teaching process stresses fluency at the expense of accuracy, as is the case in communicative activities, learners au
tomatically focus on fluency, disregarding formal accuracy. The important aspect of these shifting focuses of attention is that they are automatic.
Let me pass now to the concept of the cognitive environment and contextual effects. In accordance with relevance theory, the learner pays attention to a particular piece of information because the information is relevant to him/her as an individual, to his/her experiences stored in his/her cognition.
If the teacher asks a general L2 question “Have you been to Warsaw recently?” without nominating any particular learner, Learner X may not pay attention to the teacher’s question, al
though her linguistic and world knowledge is adequate to un
derstand it. We may say that communication has not reached the expected level of relevance, or that Learner X’s cognitive environ
ment has not been involved, or that the contextual effects were too small at a given expense of energy.
The same question, however, directed at Learner X, requires her to spend more energy on the process of comprehending it and arriving at contextual effects, which brings her to focus on last month’s visit to an aunt in Warsaw, and on providing the answer
“Yes, I have.”
On the other hand, if the teacher asks another general question
“Have you heard that our lesson has been cancelled?”, Learner X is likely to pay attention to the teacher’s question, even if she is not quite certain as to the meaning of the lexical item “cancel,” since the information communicated by the teacher refers to her as an individual, who may spend the next 45 minutes enjoying herself instead of sitting in class. The communication requires little ef
fort to arrive at contextual assumptions on the basis of her world
144 Anna Nizegorodcew
knowledge, supported by an appeal for a friend’s help or a dictio
nary to check the meaning of the unknown lexical item.
It seems fundamental to bear in mind the holistic nature of communication, which involves both verbal and non-verbal be
haviour of the interlocutors, as well as LI and L2 knowledge, and world knowledge and experience stored in our cognition.
COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES AND
OSTENSIVE-REFERENTIAL COMMUNICATION
Sperber and Wilson’s theory refers to verbal and non-verbal be
haviour in which the communicator’s intention is made manifest.
In ostensive-inferential communication there are two layers: one is the information that has been purposefully pointed out and the other is the indication that the first piece of information has been made manifest. The first part of the term “ostensive-inferential”
refers to the communicator and the second one to the audience.
Such behaviour creates the expectation of relevance, that is the significance of the communicated information in the context. Ac
cording to the principle of relevance, “every act of ostensive com
munication communicates a presumption of its own optimal rel
evance” (Sperber 1995: 158). Ostensive communication does not have to be optimally relevant, it is enough that the communicator presumes that it should be relevant.
It seems that L2 classroom communicative activities have something in common with ostensive-inferential communication, in particular in the turns in which teachers and learners communi
cate about communication or about the target language. The lan
guage used in communicative activities has two focuses: one is the role-play or simulation in the target language, the other is the indi
cation in the target or non-target language that the target language information is going to or has been made manifest. Thus, L2 class
144 Anna Nizegorodcew
knowledge, supported by an appeal for a friend’s help or a dictio
nary to check the meaning of the unknown lexical item.
It seems fundamental to bear in mind the holistic nature of communication, which involves both verbal and non-verbal be
haviour of the interlocutors, as well as LI and L2 knowledge, and world knowledge and experience stored in our cognition.
COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES AND
OSTENSIVE-REFERENTIAL COMMUNICATION
Sperber and Wilson’s theory refers to verbal and non-verbal be
haviour in which the communicator’s intention is made manifest.
In ostensive-inferential communication there are two layers: one is the information that has been purposefully pointed out and the other is the indication that the first piece of information has been made manifest. The first part of the term “ostensive-inferential”
refers to the communicator and the second one to the audience.
Such behaviour creates the expectation of relevance, that is the significance of the communicated information in the context. Ac
cording to the principle of relevance, “every act of ostensive com
munication communicates a presumption of its own optimal rel
evance” (Sperber 1995: 158). Ostensive communication does not have to be optimally relevant, it is enough that the communicator presumes that it should be relevant.
It seems that L2 classroom communicative activities have something in common with ostensive-inferential communication, in particular in the turns in which teachers and learners communi
cate about communication or about the target language. The lan
guage used in communicative activities has two focuses: one is the role-play or simulation in the target language, the other is the indi
cation in the target or non-target language that the target language information is going to or has been made manifest. Thus, L2 class
What Can Relevance Theory Tell EFL Teachers 145
room discourse resembles ostensive-inferential communication in that it shifts the audience’s attention from one focus of commu
nication to the other, from metacommunication (in the target or non-target language) or communication about the target language to the target language communicative activities proper.
Communication resembling ostensive-inferential communi
cation can be seen in the teacher’s language, whose function is to focus the learners’ attention on the target language meanings by means of particular discourse devices, e.g. self-repetition.
(1) T: Could anybody provide an example?
Could anybody give an example?
Czy ktoś może dać przykład?
/Could anybody give an example?/
Could anybody give an example?
Such language use is not exceptional in L2 classroom dis
course. Teachers’ self-repetitions in L2 and LI aim at turning learners’ attention to the message. In consequence, they increase the ostention (overtness) of the utterance. The learners are pro
vided with ample input (in L2 and LI) to be able to comprehend and act upon the eliciting phrase.
Communication resembling ostensive-inferential communi
cation can also be seen in the shifting focus between metacommu
nication, communication about L2 and role-play/simulation itself.
For instance, learners are talking in pairs about new technolo
gies in medicine.
(2) T: Proszę kontynuować. metacommunication /Please continue/
LI: This will be a progress in medicine, simulation
T: This will bring some progress. communication about L2 L2: Już wszystko. metacommunication
/That’s all!
146 Anna Niżegorodcew
T: Na pewno? Spróbujcie wymyślić jakieś dodatkowe pytania.
/Are you sure? Try to thinly of some additional questions/
metacommunication L2: How much it costed? simulation
T: Nie “it costed” ale “did it cost.” Pamiętaj o operatorze.
/Not “it costed" but “did it cost. " Remember about the operator/
communication about L2 L2: How much did it cost? simulation
LI: Quite a lot of money. simulation
(Frye 2000: 121)
Metacommunication and communication about L2 (error cor
rection and/or the metalanguage of grammatical commentary) point out that the accompanying information, that is role-play or simulation in L2, is relevant in the context of L2 classroom dis
course and learners are supposed to pay attention to it.
Yet the expected level of relevance, following the degree of at
tention paid to particular role-plays and simulations, seems to be lower than in real communicative exchanges (metacommunica
tion and communication about L2) because the messages learners are conveying are focused primarily on formal aspects of fluency, that is on keeping the conversation going, “thinking of some ad
ditional questions,” rather than on conveying real information.
One of the indications of the distinction between metacommu
nication and communication about L2, on the one hand, and role
plays and simulations on the other, is the phenomenon of code
switching from L2 to LI, while engaging in real communication (metacommunicating and communicating about L2). Such com
munication requires a higher level of expected relevance, hence a higher level of attention. According to relevance theory, in accor
dance with the least energy expenditure principle, teachers and learners are prone to switch to LI, because it requires less effort.
Sperber and Wilson claim that “on various social occasions, the
What Can Relevance Theory Tell EFL Teachers 147
expected level of relevance is culturally defined” (Sperber 1995:
161). It is also culturally defined in various teaching contexts. In classrooms, including L2 classrooms, it is the teacher whose role is culturally defined as that of the person who is to communicate relevant information. The teacher’s role is to pass information to the learners and to assess if the conveyed information has been acquired. Learners’ academic achievement and success is directly linked with their ability to focus on the information which the teacher is supposed to pass on and to assess. That is why teachers’
moves in L2 classroom discourse are perceived as highly signifi
cant.
Since the expected level of relevance should always be optimal, if the teacher focuses on accuracy, the learners are also likely to fo
cus on accuracy rather than on accuracy and fluency. However, if the teacher focuses on fluency without taking care of correct
ness of forms, he/she makes it manifest to the learners that fluency is optimally relevant now. Similarly, when the teacher repeats L2 utterances in LI, since the latter requires less effort, he/she indi
cates that LI utterances are optimally relevant for the learners, who, consequently, do not pay much attention to L2 utterances. If, however, LI is used for different functions from L2 (metacommu
nication and communication about L2 versus role-play and simu
lation in L2), LI utterances indicate their own optimal relevance in the given functions only, whereas the use of L2 in role-plays and simulations makes it manifest that the core function, that is com
municating in L2, has become optimally relevant. Nevertheless, even in role-plays and simulations, when the focus is on fluency, learners may switch to LI whenever they lack the necessary L2 lexical items.
148 Anna Nizegorodcew
THE ROLE OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING IN THE LIGHT OF RELEVANCE THEORY
Let me look again at communicative activities from the perspec
tive of relevance theory. One of the main proponents of com
municative language teaching (CLT), Widdowson (1978) claimed that by developing L2 communication, we develop L2 itself. This strong claim seems to be at the root of misunderstandings con
nected with the apparent failure of communicative activities in foreign language learning contexts.
Communicative language teaching was developed in second language-learning settings and not in foreign language-learning settings. Students who are immersed in a second language on a daily basis and who do not have any other lingua franca to com
municate in, develop the L2 vocabulary and structures necessary to survive in a second-language setting. Their L2 acquisition context, however, is fundamentally different from an instructed, monolin
gual L2 acquisition context in a foreign language setting, in situa
tions where both the teacher and the learners share the LI.
According to CLT the L2 teacher should create real commu
nication in the L2 classroom. Real communication involves three conditions (Brumfit 1979): 1) an information gap, that is the audi
ence do not have the information the speaker is going to convey, 2) language choice, that is the speaker has a choice of linguistic means at his/her disposal, 3) communicative intention, that is the speaker has a communicative purpose.
Let us take an example of a role-play activity. Learner A is supposed to complain about an underwater camera. Learner B is a shop assistant.
(3) A: To co powiemy?
/What shall tve say?!
148 Anna Nizegorodcew
THE ROLE OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING IN THE LIGHT OF RELEVANCE THEORY
Let me look again at communicative activities from the perspec
tive of relevance theory. One of the main proponents of com
municative language teaching (CLT), Widdowson (1978) claimed that by developing L2 communication, we develop L2 itself. This strong claim seems to be at the root of misunderstandings con
nected with the apparent failure of communicative activities in foreign language learning contexts.
Communicative language teaching was developed in second language-learning settings and not in foreign language-learning settings. Students who are immersed in a second language on a daily basis and who do not have any other lingua franca to com
municate in, develop the L2 vocabulary and structures necessary to survive in a second-language setting. Their L2 acquisition context, however, is fundamentally different from an instructed, monolin
gual L2 acquisition context in a foreign language setting, in situa
tions where both the teacher and the learners share the LI.
According to CLT the L2 teacher should create real commu
nication in the L2 classroom. Real communication involves three conditions (Brumfit 1979): 1) an information gap, that is the audi
ence do not have the information the speaker is going to convey, 2) language choice, that is the speaker has a choice of linguistic means at his/her disposal, 3) communicative intention, that is the speaker has a communicative purpose.
Let us take an example of a role-play activity. Learner A is supposed to complain about an underwater camera. Learner B is a shop assistant.
(3) A: Tocopowiemy?
iWhat shall we say?!
What Can Relevance Theory Tell EFL Teachers 149
B: No, powiedz, ze kamera przecieka.
/Say that the camera is leading/
A: Camera leaking.
A ty spytaj gdzie on kupil tç kamerç.
/And you ask^ where he has bought this camera/
B: Where you bought camera?
T: Where . . .
B: Where did you buy camera?
(Nizegorodcew 2001: 205)
First of all, communicative intentions in the above example are either imposed upon the interlocutors by their role descrip
tion or they are negotiated in LI. The role play becomes pseudo
communication, whereas real communication is performed in LI.
The real communication is metacommunication and, in the case of the teacher, communication about L2, that is error correction.
Similar patterns of communicative activities have been described elsewhere (c.f. Frye 2000; Escobar-Urmeneta 2002).
The core function of the communicative activity in the above example, that is a role-play, provides some language practice but, as has been said before, it is not real or authentic, with reference to the learners’ and teacher’s intentions. Both the teacher and learn
ers do not have real communicative purposes, since their only pur
pose is to satisfy L2 classroom norms, such as using a portion of language and making it manifest to the teacher, in the case of the learners, or passing on a portion of L2 knowledge to the learners and assessing them on their accurate use of that knowledge, in the case of the teacher.
Real or authentic L2 classroom communication is often mani
fested only in the turns focused on metacommunication and com
munication about L2. However, as has been said before, in these language functions, there is a tendency on the part of the L2 teach
ers and learners to code-switch to LI. Thus, real communication
150 Anna Nizegorodcew
is performed in LI, while L2 is frequently used only for pseudo
communication. That is why a great deal of communicative activ
ities in L2 classrooms could be more appropriately called pseudo- communicative, even though the teachers involved in those activi
ties superficially follow CLT principles (c.f. Karavas-Doukas 1996;
Nizegorodcew 2002).
The question arises what is the L2 teaching and communica
tive value of communicative activities, and how could they be im
proved. An answer, I believe, can also be found in relevance the
ory. If the expected level of relevance is raised, that is if learners realise that they should pay much greater attention to the mes
sages, which would resemble real communication to a greater ex
tent, and if L2 is used throughout communicative activities, with metacommunication and communication about L2 limited to the absolutely necessary interventions, then communicative activities could indeed become more communicative and a rich source of L2 learning in foreign language-learning settings.
It seems to me that the answer to the effectiveness of commu
nicative activities for L2 learning lies in the nature of attention.
Relevance theory claims that if we pay attention to communica
tion it becomes automatically relevant. If communicative activi
ties do not absorb learners’ attention enough, they are not relevant enough. The input in communicative activities is optimally rele
vant if it involves the participants’ attention.
Let us take an example: Two learners are involved in a com
municative activity where one of them is an architect and another a contractor. They do not prompt each other what to say next, nei
ther do they code-switch to LI. The learner playing the role of the contractor says:
(4) SI: This building is not very modern.
What Can Relevance Theory Tell EFL Teachers 151
The other learner, playing the role of the architect, has been paying attention to his interlocutor, and for him/her, automati
cally, the utterance becomes optimally relevant. The process au
tomatically triggers a search in the learner’s mental lexicon of the lexical item modem and assigns it to a given concept; it also en
gages the learner’s whole cognitive environment, his/her LI and L2 knowledge and world knowledge. He/she answers:
(5) S2: But it is very multifunctional.
In giving such an answer, the learner inferred that he/she should point to the assets of his/her design. The role-play has re
sembled real communication since all three conditions of commu
nicative activities have been fulfilled: a communication gap, lan
guage choice and a communicative purpose. If communicative ac
tivities are used in such a way, we can conclude that they are con
ducive to L2 learning.
It should be also remembered that the main preoccupation of L2 communicative activities is focusing on fluency. Thus, the learners follow the L2 classroom discourse principles and aim at investing such amounts of energy which would lead to the ex
pected contextual effects. The learners’ attention-paying process is geared towards language uses that require least effort under the circumstances.
The question arises whether or not communicative activities, which are always optimally relevant for a particular individual under particular circumstances, provide the input which could be most efficiently processed by a learner who would like to acquire a maximum portion of L2 and be able to use it. Let us imagine that a particular input, such as in the above example, reaches the in
dividual’s cognitive processes. If the learner wants not only to un
derstand and respond but also to acquire the input he/she receives, that input should be in his/her focus of attention all the time. Thus,
152 Anna Nizegorodcew
availability for acquisition does not depend in my view so much on the input itself as on the readiness of the recipient’s attention.
In this respect, the question of optimally relevant input touches upon the question of learner autonomy. Even a single ut
terance, e.g. This building is not very modem, given the learner’s enormous expenditure of energy, can lead to his/her reading a book in L2 on modern architecture and, simultaneously, acquir
ing a great number of previously unknown specialist vocabulary items and developing the skill of reading, not to mention his/her increased knowledge of modern architecture.
L2 TEACHING IMPLICATIONS
Let me go back to the title of my paper — what can relevance theory tell EFL teachers? I believe that it can tell them, first of all, that the value of communicative activities for L2 learning depends on the attention learners pay to these activities. The teachers should make learners realise that communicative activities are not relaxing pas
times between real L2 learning tasks but that they are the tasks themselves and they provide the best opportunities for L2 commu
nication combined with L2 practice. As I have said before, meta
communication and communication about L2 should be limited to the absolutely necessary interventions. Teachers should show more concern about the messages to be conveyed by the learners, to their role-play identities and to their communicative intentions, so that role-plays and simulations may resemble real communi
cation.
What Can Relevance Theory Tell EFL Teachers 153
Works Cited
Brumfit, C., and K. Johnson, eds. 1979. The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Escobar-Urmeneta, C. 2002. “Attention and the processing of com
prehensible input in communication tasks among secondary school learners.” Beyond L2 Teaching. Ed. A. Niżegorodcew. Kraków:
Jagiellonian UP. 45-52.
Frye, A. 2000. “Using communicative activities in Polish secondary schools.” Diss. Kraków: Jagiellonian U.
Karavas-Doukas, E. 1996. “Using attitude scales to investigate teach
ers’ attitudes to the communicative approach.” ELT Journal 50.3:
187-194.
Niżegorodcew, A. 1999. “Relevance theory, second language acquisi
tion and classroom language learning.” On Language Theory and Practice. Ed. M. Wysocka. Vol. 2. Katowice: Silesian UP. 73—85.
--- . 2001. “Applying relevance theory to L2 learning processes.”
"And gladly tvolde he leme and gladly teche.” Ed. W. Witalisz.
Kraków: Jagiellonian UP. 201-207.
--- . 2002. “Resisting pseudo-communicative language use.” Pro
ceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of PASE. Ed. E. Mańczak- Wohlfeld. Kraków: Jagiellonian UP. 229—237.
Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cog
nition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Widdowson, H. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford:
Oxford UP.
