# SEO says relevance a thousand times a day. Relevance theory says what it is. Canonical: https://www.searchresultoptimization.com/seo/relevance-theory/ Author: Johannes Faupel Last revised: 2026-09-16 A relevant answer gives the most insight for the least effort. Everything else is a match of words. Topical connection and usefulness in context are different questions. See [a relevant result that still leaves the reader stuck](https://www.searchresultoptimization.com/seo/presupposition/#what-is-pragmatic-failure-in-search-results). Relevance theory, developed by Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson, is the most influential account of how people understand what others mean. This page states what is settled about it, what the usual treatment leaves out, and what follows for anybody who wants a page to be relevant in the sense a reader's mind uses. Every heading is a question. The answer stands directly under it, in plain words. ## Who is Dan Sperber in relevance theory? Dan Sperber is a French cognitive scientist and anthropologist who developed relevance theory with Deirdre Wilson. Their book Relevance: Communication and Cognition appeared in 1986. It moved the study of meaning from codes to inference. *How to act on Sperber's account of relevance with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Read a short introduction to relevance theory before judging what relevant means | Google Scholar, library access to Relevance: Communication and Cognition | A definition of relevance from the side of the mind | | SEO | Replace the word relevant in briefs with effect and effort | A shared briefing document | Briefs that say what relevance requires | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "relevant"` | Pages that use the word without saying what it means | *Who benefits from Sperber's account of relevance, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | SEO | Defines relevance as effect against effort | Work aimed at what makes a page relevant to a mind | | Management | Gets a clear idea of what relevant content is | Better content decisions | | Readers | Get pages built for what they gain | More insight per visit | ## Who is Deirdre Wilson in the study of relevance? Deirdre Wilson is a British linguist at University College London and the co-founder of relevance theory. She developed its account of explicature, irony and lexical meaning over four decades. Much of pragmatics today is written in her terms. *How to act on Wilson's account of explicit and implicit meaning with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Watch a free recorded lecture on relevance theory | University video channels | The theory in its author's words | | SEO | Check headings and snippets for what they say explicitly and what they leave to inference | Search Console queries next to your titles | What readers have to infer from the result | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:"what is"` | Definition pages to test for explicit content | *Who benefits from Wilson's account of explicit and implicit meaning, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Separates what a page says from what it leaves to inference | Snippets and headings that say the point | | SEO | Tests titles for what readers must infer | Clicks from readers who understood the result | | Readers | Read less between the lines | Clearer understanding | ## What did Paul Grice contribute to relevance theory? Paul Grice showed that people communicate by recognising intentions, and he described conversational maxims such as be relevant and be as informative as required. Relevance theory grew out of his work. It replaced his maxims with a single principle of relevance. *How to act on Grice's maxims with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Ask whether a result says as much as you need and no more | Google search | Answers that are informative enough | | SEO | Cut text that says more than the reader needs for the question | The page itself, Microsoft Clarity scroll depth | Where readers stop because of too much | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:"ultimate guide"` | Pages likely to say more than needed | *Who benefits from Grice's maxims, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Says as much as needed and no more | Pages that end the search | | Management | Avoids content bloat | Budget spent on useful pages | | Readers | Get enough information without excess | Time saved | Also discussed at [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/#:~:text=was%20the%20first%20to%20systematically%20study%20cases%20in%20which%20what%20a%20speaker%20means%20differs%20from%20what%20the%20sentence%20used%20by%20the%20speaker%20means) ## What is an utterance in relevance theory? An utterance is an act of communication that comes with a built-in promise: that it is worth the listener's attention. The words encode only part of what is meant. The listener infers the rest. *How to act on the promise of an utterance with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Treat a title as a promise and check whether the page keeps it | Google search and the page | Titles worth your attention | | SEO | Compare each title's promise with what the first screen delivers | Search Console and the page on a phone | Promises the page breaks | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:how` | Titles that promise an answer | *Who benefits from the promise of an utterance, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | SEO | Aligns titles with what pages deliver | Fewer returns to the result page | | Content team | Keeps the promise of every heading | Readers who trust the next heading | | Readers | Get what the title promised | Trust | ## What is ostensive-inferential communication between a result and its reader? Ostensive-inferential communication is communication in which a speaker openly shows an intention to inform and the listener infers what is meant. Showing and inferring are the two halves. A search result is a showing, and the reader does the inferring. *How to act on ostensive-inferential communication with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Ask what the result is showing you and what you are inferring from it | Google search | The difference between shown and assumed | | SEO | State the key point openly in the snippet instead of leaving it to inference | Search Console, meta descriptions, the page's first sentence | Results whose point readers can see | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com` | The snippets Google shows for your pages | *Who benefits from ostensive-inferential communication, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | SEO | States the point openly in snippets | Results readers understand at once | | Content team | Writes first sentences that show the point | Snippets Google can use | | Readers | See the point without guessing | Faster, surer choices | ## What is the cognitive principle of relevance? The cognitive principle of relevance states that human cognition tends to be geared to the maximisation of relevance. Attention goes where the most can be gained for the least effort. A reader scanning a result page follows this principle without knowing it. *How to act on the cognitive principle of relevance with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Notice which result you choose first and why it caught your attention | Google search | Where your attention goes | | SEO | Put the greatest gain for the reader into the first words of the title | Search Console click-through rate per page | Titles that attract attention for the right reason | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:"your topic"` | Titles competing for the same attention | *Who benefits from the cognitive principle of relevance, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | SEO | Puts the reader's gain first in titles | Attention for the right reason | | Content team | Leads with what readers gain | Visitors who stay | | Readers | Find what repays attention | Less wasted attention | ## What is the communicative principle of relevance? The communicative principle of relevance states that every act of open communication conveys a presumption of its own optimal relevance. Whoever addresses someone implicitly claims to be worth the effort. A title in a result list makes that claim. *How to act on the communicative principle of relevance with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Leave a page that does not repay the attention its title claimed | The browser back button | Time saved | | SEO | Check pages with high impressions and low clicks for titles that do not seem worth the effort | Search Console, Performance report | Results that fail to claim relevance | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:"everything you need"` | Titles that claim more than they deliver | *Who benefits from the communicative principle of relevance, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | SEO | Finds titles that do not seem worth the effort | Higher click-through where impressions are high | | Content team | Writes titles that claim what the page delivers | Clicks that turn into satisfied visits | | Readers | Can rely on a title's claim | Fewer disappointments | ## What is processing effort for a reader? Processing effort is the mental work needed to understand an input and draw conclusions from it. Other things being equal, more effort means less relevance. A page that makes the reader work hard for its point lowers its own relevance. *How to act on processing effort with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Choose the result that gets to the point fastest when the need is simple | Google search | Less effort for the same effect | | SEO | Measure reading effort: sentence length, jargon, time to the answer | Hemingway Editor web version, Microsoft Clarity | Effort that lowers relevance | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "in other words" OR "simply put"` | Pages that already reduce effort | *Who benefits from processing effort, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Shortens sentences and removes jargon | Pages people finish | | Product team | Removes interface effort around the text | Longer engagement from search visitors | | Readers | Understand with less work | Energy left for the decision | If working out "not all" cost nothing, both readings would become available at the same moment. The inferred reading arrives 140 ms later, and 120 ms later than the same meaning stated with "only". *When accurate answers begin, with and without an inferred "not all"* | Experiment | Sentence and reading | Accurate answers begin after | | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | "Some elephants are mammals", read as some and possibly all | 330 ms | | 1 | "Some elephants are mammals", read as some but not all | 470 ms | | 2 | "Only some elephants are mammals", meaning stated in the words | 360 ms | | 2 | "Some elephants are mammals", same meaning inferred | 480 ms | Bott, L., Bailey, T. M. and Grodner, D., Distinguishing speed from accuracy in scalar implicatures, Journal of Memory and Language, 2012. Speed-accuracy trade-off task, time from the onset of the last word, 29 students in Experiment 1 and 18 in Experiment 2. ## What is a cognitive effect of a relevant answer? A cognitive effect is a worthwhile change in a person's picture of the world: a new conclusion, a strengthened belief, a corrected error. The greater the effect, the greater the relevance. An answer that changes nothing in the reader's mind is irrelevant, however well it matches the query. *How to act on cognitive effects with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | After reading, name one thing you now know or believe differently | A notes app | Whether the page changed anything | | SEO | Ask readers what they learned that they did not know before | Google Forms with one open question | The effect the page has | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "what most people miss" OR "surprising"` | Pages that aim at a new conclusion | *Who benefits from cognitive effects, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Adds a conclusion readers did not have | Pages worth citing and linking | | Management | Measures what readers learn, beyond visits | Content that changes something | | Readers | Leave with new insight | Real value from the visit | ## What is an explicature in relevance theory? An explicature is what a speaker explicitly communicates, the literal meaning developed with context into a full thought. It is already more than the words encode. A two-word query becomes a complete question only through this development. *How to act on explicatures with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Rewrite your short query as the full question you mean | A notes app | The complete thought behind it | | SEO | Develop the main queries into full questions and use them as headings | Search Console queries and your headings | Headings that state the thought | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:"how do" OR intitle:"why does"` | Pages with fully stated questions | *Who benefits from explicatures, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Uses full questions as headings | Passages found for complete questions | | SEO | Maps short queries to full questions | Pages that answer the thought behind the words | | Readers | See their full question answered | No reformulation | Also discussed at [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatics/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatics/#:~:text=the%20relevance%20theoretic%20replacement%20for) ## What is an implicature in relevance theory? An implicature is an assumption a speaker communicates without saying it, which the listener has to infer. In relevance theory it follows from the search for relevance. What a query implies can matter more than what it says. *How to act on implicatures with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Ask what a result implies without saying it | Google search | Hidden assumptions in answers | | SEO | List what a query implies and answer that too | People also ask on Google | The unsaid part of the need | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "this means" OR "which implies"` | Pages that make implications explicit | *Who benefits from implicatures, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Answers what a query implies as well as what it says | Visitors whose unsaid need is met | | Customer support | Receives fewer follow-up questions | Shorter contacts | | Readers | Get answers to the unsaid part | Complete help | ## What is an informative intention behind a page? An informative intention is the intention to make certain assumptions manifest to an audience. It is what a speaker wants the listener to take in. A page has one, whether its author thought about it or not. *How to act on the informative intention of a page with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Ask what the page wants you to take away | The page itself | Its purpose | | SEO | Write the one thing the page should make clear, and check the page against it | A shared document | Pages without a clear informative intention | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:overview` | Pages that may lack a single point | *Who benefits from the informative intention of a page, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Gives each page one clear point | Pages that rank for a clear topic | | SEO | Avoids pages with blurred purpose | Less overlap between the site's own pages | | Readers | Know what the page wants to tell them | Faster understanding | ## What is a communicative intention behind a search result? A communicative intention is the intention to make the informative intention itself recognised. The listener sees that someone is trying to tell them something. This openness separates communication from mere information. *How to act on communicative intentions with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Tell apart pages that openly inform from pages that disguise selling | The page itself, About this result | Whether you are being informed or steered | | SEO | Make the purpose of the page visible: inform, compare, sell | The page itself | Openness readers can recognise | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "sponsored" OR "advertisement"` | Pages that disclose a commercial purpose | *Who benefits from communicative intentions, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Legal and compliance | Keeps commercial purposes visible | Compliance with disclosure rules | | Management | Chooses openness about purpose | Trust that brings readers back | | Readers | Recognise when they are being sold to | Informed choices | ## What is the code model of communication in search? The code model describes communication as encoding a message into a signal and decoding it with a shared code. Relevance theory rejects it as incomplete, because the code delivers only evidence of what is meant. Keyword matching is a code model of search. *How to act on the code model in search with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Search the meaning when the exact words fail | Google search | Results beyond word matching | | SEO | Check whether pages rank for words but miss the meaning readers want | Search Console queries with low click-through rate | Matches of words without matches of meaning | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:"keyword" inurl:keyword` | Pages built around a keyword string instead of a meaning | *Who benefits from the code model in search, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | SEO | Looks beyond keyword matches to meaning | Pages that satisfy the searches they rank for | | Content team | Writes for meaning, keeping the words | Visibility for the words and the need | | Readers | Find pages that understood them | Better results | Described in a Google patent: [https://patents.google.com/patent/US9940367B1/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US9940367B1/en#:~:text=a%20query%20term%20match%20score%20that%20is%20a%20measure%20of%20similarity%20of%20the%20query%20terms%20to%20the%20candidate%20answer%20passage) ## What is the presumption of optimal relevance? The presumption of optimal relevance is the assumption that an utterance is relevant enough to be worth processing and the most relevant one the speaker could and wanted to produce. It tells the listener where to stop interpreting. A reader stops at the first reading that pays off. *How to act on the presumption of optimal relevance with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Stop reading once a page has answered your question | The page itself | Time you do not need to spend | | SEO | Place the answer where readers will stop looking | Microsoft Clarity scroll depth and heatmaps | Whether the answer comes before readers stop | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:"what is"` | Pages whose answer should come first | *Who benefits from the presumption of optimal relevance, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Places the answer where readers stop looking | Answers seen before readers leave | | SEO | Checks where readers stop on key pages | Pages that deliver in time | | Readers | Stop reading once they have the answer | Time saved | ## How does relevance theory explain metaphor? Relevance theory treats metaphor as a loose use of language, a point on a continuum from literal to looser uses. The listener takes from the word what is relevant and drops the rest. No special mechanism is needed. *How to act on metaphor with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Take from a metaphor what fits your question and drop the rest | The page itself | The point behind the image | | SEO | Check whether metaphors in titles and headings mislead literal readers | A colleague's reading, Search Console queries | Metaphors that attract the wrong searches | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:"secret" OR intitle:"magic"` | Titles that use metaphor | *Who benefits from metaphor, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Uses metaphors that support the point | Titles that attract the right searches | | SEO | Avoids metaphors that draw literal searches | Fewer mismatched visitors | | Readers | Get the point behind the image | Clear understanding | Also discussed at [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphor/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphor/#:~:text=relevance%20theory%20takes%20metaphor%20to%20be%20an%20especially%20dramatic%20form%20of%20loose%20talk) ## How does relevance theory explain irony? Relevance theory explains irony as echoic: the speaker echoes a thought or an utterance and expresses a dissociative attitude towards it, such as mockery or rejection. Great weather, said in the rain, echoes an expectation. The attitude is the point. *How to act on irony with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Look for the attitude when a text seems to say the opposite of its meaning | The page itself | The writer's real position | | SEO | Avoid irony in snippets and headings that answer engines may quote literally | Search Console and a check of quoted answers in AI Overviews | Irony taken at face value | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "of course" OR "great idea"` | Phrases that may be ironic | *Who benefits from irony, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Keeps irony out of passages that may be quoted | No misquoted answers in AI summaries | | Legal and compliance | Avoids statements that could be taken literally and wrongly | Lower risk | | Readers | Are not misled by irony read literally | Correct information | ## How does relevance theory explain hyperbole? Hyperbole is treated as another loose use, an exaggeration the listener adjusts to what is relevant. I have told you a thousand times communicates frequency and annoyance. The number is not meant to be counted. *How to act on hyperbole with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Adjust exaggerated claims to what they plausibly mean | The page itself | Claims at their real size | | SEO | Replace exaggerations in titles with accurate statements | Search Console titles and click-through rate | Titles that promise too much | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:ultimate OR intitle:"best ever" OR intitle:guaranteed` | Titles with hyperbole | *Who benefits from hyperbole, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | SEO | Replaces exaggerated titles with accurate ones | Clicks from people the page can satisfy | | Legal and compliance | Avoids exaggerated claims | Fewer complaints | | Readers | Get claims at their real size | Realistic expectations | ## What was Stephen Levinson's criticism of relevance theory? Stephen Levinson criticised relevance theory as too reductive and argued for default inferences that arise without context, the generalised conversational implicatures. The debate shaped both positions. Search systems work with defaults all the time. *How to act on default inferences with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Notice default readings you make without thinking, such as some meaning not all | A notes app | Inferences you did not check | | SEO | Check which default readings a query triggers and answer them | People also ask and related searches on Google | Defaults the page has to address | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "some" "not all"` | Pages that state scope precisely | *Who benefits from default inferences, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Addresses default readings of a query | Visitors whose first reading is served | | SEO | Finds common default readings through related searches | Coverage of the usual assumptions | | Readers | Get answers that match their default reading | Less confusion | ## What does the usual treatment of relevance theory leave out? The measurements and the finer machinery. The usual treatment names the principles, explicature and implicature. It leaves out how effort is measured in the eyes, the pupils and the brain, how word meanings are adjusted on the spot, how listeners guard against being misled, and the rival traditions the theory argues with. For search, this is where relevance stops being a slogan and becomes something that can be tested. *How to act on what the usual treatment of relevance theory leaves out with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | SEO | Measure effort on the page with free signals: reading time, scroll, rage clicks | Microsoft Clarity and Google Analytics 4 engagement time | Relevance as something testable | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:"your topic"` | The pages to measure first | *Who benefits from what the usual treatment of relevance theory leaves out, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Management | Treats relevance as measurable | Decisions based on evidence | | SEO | Measures effort with free signals | Pages improved where effort is high | | Readers | Get pages tested for effort | Easier reading | ## What is a higher-level explicature in a query? A higher-level explicature embeds the explicit content in a description of the speaker's attitude or speech act, such as she is asking whether or he regrets that. It captures how something is said. A query can carry doubt or urgency at this level. *How to act on higher-level explicatures with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Notice doubt or urgency in how you phrase a query | A notes app | The attitude behind your question | | SEO | Find queries with really, actually, still or urgent and answer the attitude | Search Console custom regex filter | Doubt and urgency in the page's queries | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:"does it really" OR intitle:"is it true"` | Pages that answer doubt | *Who benefits from higher-level explicatures, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Answers doubt and urgency as well as the question | Visibility for really and still queries | | Customer support | Recognises the attitude behind a question | Replies that fit the tone | | Readers | Feel their doubt taken seriously | Reassurance | ## What is a weak implicature for the reader? A weak implicature is one of many possible conclusions a speaker encourages without committing to any single one. Poetic and suggestive language works this way. The reader carries more of the responsibility for what is taken. *How to act on weak implicatures with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Separate what a text suggests from what it states | The page itself | Conclusions you drew yourself | | SEO | State the key conclusion strongly where readers must not guess | The page itself | Conclusions left too weak | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "may" "might" "could"` | Pages that hedge key conclusions | *Who benefits from weak implicatures, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | States key conclusions clearly | Pages whose main point is not missed | | Legal and compliance | Avoids suggestions readers may take as promises | Fewer disputes | | Readers | Know what the page actually says | Less guessing | ## What is a strong implicature in a direct answer? A strong implicature is a conclusion the speaker clearly intends and that the listener must draw to make sense of the utterance. The speaker is responsible for it. Most answers to direct questions work through strong implicatures. *How to act on strong implicatures with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Check that a yes or no answer really follows from the text | The page itself | The conclusion the writer intends | | SEO | Make direct answers unmistakable in the first sentence | The page on a phone, first screen | Answers readers draw without doubt | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:"can you" OR intitle:"should you"` | Pages that need a direct answer | *Who benefits from strong implicatures, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Makes direct answers unmistakable | Answers engines can quote | | Customer support | Links pages with clear yes or no answers | Fewer follow-up questions | | Readers | Get a clear answer | A decision | ## What is procedural meaning of small words in a text? Procedural meaning is meaning that tells the listener how to process the content, carried by words such as but, so or after all. Such words encode instructions for inference. They guide the reader through a text. *How to act on procedural meaning with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Watch words like but, so and after all when you read an argument | The page itself | The direction the text takes | | SEO | Check connectives in key passages so they guide the right inference | A proofreading pass | Sentences that steer readers wrongly | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "however" OR "therefore"` | Passages where connectives steer inference | *Who benefits from procedural meaning, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Uses connectives that guide the right inference | Arguments readers follow | | SEO | Keeps passages clear enough to be extracted | Passages that make sense out of context | | Readers | Follow the reasoning | Understanding without rereading | ## What is conceptual meaning on a page? Conceptual meaning is meaning that contributes a concept to the thought, as nouns and most verbs do. Relevance theory separates it from procedural meaning. The difference shows why small connecting words change how a page is understood. *How to act on conceptual meaning with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Look up a key concept you are unsure of | Dictionaries, encyclopedias | The concept behind the word | | SEO | Define the central concepts at first use | The page itself | Concepts readers understand | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "is defined as" OR "refers to"` | Pages that define concepts | *Who benefits from conceptual meaning, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Defines central concepts at first use | Pages found for definition queries | | Customer support | Links definitions | Fewer basic questions | | Readers | Understand the key concepts | Confidence | ## What is mutual manifestness between a searcher and a page? Mutual manifestness is the relevance-theoretic replacement for mutual knowledge: an assumption is mutually manifest when both parties could represent it and know that the other could. It asks for less than certain shared knowledge. It matches what a searcher and a page can realistically share. *How to act on mutual manifestness with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Check whether the page assumes knowledge you do not have | The page itself | Gaps in shared ground | | SEO | List what the page assumes readers already know and explain the rest | A colleague new to the topic | Assumptions readers do not share | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "as you know" OR "obviously"` | Pages that assume shared knowledge | *Who benefits from mutual manifestness, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Explains what readers cannot be assumed to know | Pages that work for newcomers | | Sales | Speaks to prospects at their level of knowledge | Fewer misunderstandings | | Readers | Share the ground the page builds on | Understanding | ## What is the cognitive environment of a searcher? A cognitive environment is the set of assumptions that are manifest to a person at a given moment. Context is drawn from it. Two searchers typing the same query bring two different cognitive environments. *How to act on the searcher's cognitive environment with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Add what you already know to the query | Google search | Results at your level | | SEO | Describe the typical starting knowledge of visitors from real questions | Google Forms, support questions | The context readers bring | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:beginners OR intitle:advanced` | Pages for different starting points | *Who benefits from the searcher's cognitive environment, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Writes for the knowledge readers bring | Pages that fit their visitors | | Product team | Designs paths for different starting points | Visitors who find their entry | | Readers | Find content at their level | No wasted reading | ## What is an ad hoc concept in a search query? An ad hoc concept is a word meaning adjusted on the spot, narrowed or broadened for the occasion. Robyn Carston developed the idea. Cheap in cheap flights means something else than in cheap perfume. *How to act on ad hoc concepts with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Specify what a word like cheap or fast means to you | Google search with a price or time | Results for your meaning of the word | | SEO | Check how a vague word in the page's queries is meant in context | Search Console queries tab and People also ask | The meaning searchers give the word | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:cheap OR intitle:affordable` | Pages that use a context-dependent word | *Who benefits from ad hoc concepts, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Makes clear what a vague word means on the page | Visitors whose meaning of the word is served | | Sales | States what cheap or fast means concretely | Fewer disappointed buyers | | Readers | Know which meaning applies | Correct expectations | ## What is loose use of words in relevance theory? Loose use is the use of a word with a meaning looser than its strict sense, as in the room is empty for a room with a chair in it. Approximation, hyperbole and metaphor lie on one continuum. The literal reading is rarely the intended one. *How to act on loose use with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Read approximate words as approximate | The page itself | The intended meaning | | SEO | Use exact figures where approximate words could mislead | The page itself | Claims readers can rely on | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "about" OR "roughly" OR "almost"` | Approximations to check | *Who benefits from loose use, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Uses exact figures where precision matters | Pages trusted for accuracy | | Legal and compliance | Avoids approximations that could mislead | Lower risk | | Readers | Know when a statement is exact | Reliable information | Also discussed at [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphor/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphor/#:~:text=takes%20talk%20in%20general%20to%20be%20at%20least%20somewhat%20loose%20most%20of%20the%20time) ## What is a poetic effect of memorable writing? A poetic effect is the relevance an utterance gains from a wide range of weak implicatures. No single conclusion carries it. Memorable writing often works this way. *How to act on poetic effects with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Notice which lines stay with you after reading | A notes app | What made the page memorable | | SEO | Keep one memorable sentence per key point | The page itself, social shares | Lines readers quote | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:"why"` | Pages where a memorable line could carry the point | *Who benefits from poetic effects, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Writes one memorable line per key point | Lines that readers quote and share | | Management | Builds a recognisable voice | A brand people remember | | Readers | Remember what they read | Lasting value | ## What is a non-propositional effect of a page? A non-propositional effect is an impression, a feeling or a sensory quality an utterance creates without a statable conclusion. Tone of voice and style produce such effects. Readers take them from a page as much as they take facts. *How to act on non-propositional effects with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Notice the impression a page leaves beyond its facts | A notes app | How tone affected your trust | | SEO | Ask test readers for three words that describe the page's tone | Google Forms | The impression the page creates | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "amazing" OR "incredible"` | Pages whose tone may be louder than intended | *Who benefits from non-propositional effects, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Checks the impression the tone creates | Readers who trust the voice | | Management | Keeps tone consistent with the brand | A coherent brand experience | | Readers | Get an impression that matches the facts | Trust | ## What is the relevance-theoretic comprehension procedure? The relevance-theoretic comprehension procedure says: follow a path of least effort in computing effects, test interpretations in order of accessibility, and stop when your expectation of relevance is satisfied. It describes how people actually settle on a meaning. It is also a description of how people read a result page. *How to act on the comprehension procedure with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Test the first interpretation that comes to mind before settling | The page itself | A meaning checked | | SEO | Make the most accessible reading of each heading the intended one | Five-second test with colleagues | Headings read as meant | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:"your topic"` | Titles to test for their first reading | *Who benefits from the comprehension procedure, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Makes the first reading of each heading the intended one | Headings that lead the right readers on | | SEO | Tests titles for their first reading | Clicks from people who understood | | Readers | Understand correctly on first reading | No misreadings | Also discussed at [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatics/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatics/#:~:text=stops%20when%20her%20expectations%20of%20relevance%20are%20satisfied) ## What did Robyn Carston contribute to relevance theory? Robyn Carston, a linguist at University College London, developed the relevance-theoretic account of explicature and lexical pragmatics, above all in Thoughts and Utterances from 2002. Her work on ad hoc concepts shapes the field. Much of what relevance theory says about word meaning is hers. *How to act on lexical pragmatics with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Read a free chapter or lecture on lexical pragmatics | Google Scholar, university repositories | How word meaning shifts in context | | SEO | Check whether key words on the page are meant broadly or narrowly and make it clear | The page itself | Word meanings readers get right | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "in this sense" OR "here we mean"` | Pages that fix word meaning | *Who benefits from lexical pragmatics, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Fixes whether key words are meant broadly or narrowly | Pages that match the intended meaning of queries | | SEO | Checks how vague words are understood in context | Better fit between query and page | | Readers | Get the meaning they intended | Relevant results | ## What did Diane Blakemore contribute to relevance theory? Diane Blakemore introduced the distinction between conceptual and procedural meaning in relevance theory, in Semantic Constraints on Relevance from 1987. She showed how discourse connectives constrain interpretation. The concept of procedural meaning is hers. *How to act on procedural meaning in discourse with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Follow connecting words to see the argument | The page itself | The structure of reasoning | | SEO | Use connectives that make the reasoning path clear | A proofreading pass | Arguments readers can follow | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "because" "therefore"` | Pages with explicit reasoning | *Who benefits from procedural meaning in discourse, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Builds clear reasoning paths with connectives | Passages cited for their clear argument | | Customer support | Uses the same clear structure in replies | Easier explanations | | Readers | Follow an argument easily | Understanding | ## What is free enrichment of a query? Free enrichment is the pragmatic addition of material to the explicit content that no word in the sentence demands, as in I have eaten, understood as today. It is optional and driven by relevance. Queries are enriched this way by every reader. *How to act on free enrichment with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Say out loud what you added to your query in your head | A notes app | The context the query leaves out | | SEO | Name the usual enrichments of a query on the page, such as time or place | Search Console, date and country tabs | Context readers add silently | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "today" OR "near you"` | Pages that state added context | *Who benefits from free enrichment, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Names the usual added context, such as time or place | Visibility for enriched, longer queries | | SEO | Uses date and country data to see added context | Pages that match unspoken context | | Readers | Find answers that fit their unspoken context | Relevant help | ## What is saturation of the open slots in a query? Saturation is the filling of a slot that the words themselves require, such as who I refers to or what ready is ready for. It is obligatory. It separates what a sentence needs from what a reader adds. *How to act on saturation with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Fill in what a word like ready or enough refers to | A notes app | A complete question | | SEO | Answer the open slots of queries such as enough for what | People also ask on Google | Questions the query requires | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:"how much" OR intitle:"how long"` | Pages that fill open slots | *Who benefits from saturation, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Answers the slots a query leaves open | Visitors whose full question is answered | | Customer support | Gets fewer enough for what questions | Shorter contacts | | Readers | Get a complete answer | No follow-up search | ## What is an unarticulated constituent in a query? An unarticulated constituent is an element of what is meant that no word expresses, like the place in it is raining, as John Perry described. The thought is complete, the sentence is not. Queries are full of such unspoken parts. *How to act on unarticulated constituents with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Add the unspoken place or time to your query | Google search | Results that fit | | SEO | Check country and device data for unspoken parts of the page's queries | Search Console, country and device tabs | Parts of the need nobody types | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "in the UK" OR "in the US"` | Pages that state place | *Who benefits from unarticulated constituents, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | SEO | Reads place and device behind queries | Pages that fit where people search | | Content team | States the place or time a statement applies to | Answers that apply to the reader | | Readers | Get answers for their place and moment | Useful information | Also discussed at [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatics/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatics/#:~:text=an%20instance%20of%20a%20more%20general%20phenomenon%20we%20will%20call) Described in a Google patent: [https://patents.google.com/patent/US8200694B1/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US8200694B1/en#:~:text=A%20degree%20of%20implicit%20local%20relevance%20for%20the%20query%20is%20determined) ## What is a generalised conversational implicature in search? A generalised conversational implicature is an inference that arises by default in most contexts, such as some suggesting not all. Stephen Levinson built his theory of presumptive meanings on it. Relevance theory treats the same inferences as context-driven. *How to act on generalised conversational implicatures with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Check whether some in a result also means not all | The page itself | The scope of a claim | | SEO | Remove unintended default readings from key statements | A colleague's reading | Statements read wider or narrower than meant | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "some" OR "often"` | Statements open to default readings | *Who benefits from generalised conversational implicatures, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Checks statements for unintended default readings | Claims read as meant | | Legal and compliance | Keeps scope words precise | Fewer misunderstandings about scope | | Readers | Understand the scope of a claim | Correct conclusions | Also discussed at [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/#:~:text=implicatures%20we%20normally%20and%20automatically%20infer%20in%20the%20absence%20of%20evidence%20to%20the%20contrary) If adults read "some" only by its literal meaning, they would accept the giraffe sentence as readily as the children. Fewer than half of them accept it. *Agreement with true statements that use "some", by age* | Age group | Accept a fitting "some" statement (Some birds live in cages) | Accept an underinformative "some" statement (Some giraffes have long necks) | | --- | --- | --- | | 7 to 8 years (31 children) | 84 % | 89 % | | 10 to 11 years (30 children) | 90 % | 85 % | | Adults (15) | 99 % | 41 % | Noveck, I. A., When children are more logical than adults: experimental investigations of scalar implicature, Cognition, 2001, Experiment 3, Table 4. French native speakers, five statements of each type, spoken with the quantifier certains. ## What is a particularised conversational implicature in context? A particularised conversational implicature arises only in a specific context. Is there a petrol station near here, asked while holding a can, implies that the car has run dry. The implicature disappears in another situation. *How to act on particularised implicatures with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Consider what your situation adds to a question | A notes app | The implicature of your context | | SEO | Describe the situations in which the page's questions are asked | Search Console queries and Google Forms | Context-bound needs | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "if you are"` | Pages that address specific situations | *Who benefits from particularised implicatures, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Describes the situations questions arise in | Pages that fit specific situations | | Sales | Addresses the situation behind a request | Offers that fit | | Readers | Get help for their specific context | Relevant answers | ## What is a scalar implicature for readers? A scalar implicature is the inference from a weaker term on a scale to the denial of a stronger one, as from some to not all. Experiments show that people draw it at very different rates for different scales. It is the best-measured implicature of all. *How to act on scalar implicatures with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Check whether good means not excellent in a review | The review itself | The strength of a judgement | | SEO | Choose scale words deliberately in ratings and claims | The page itself | Claims that do not understate or overstate | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "good" "excellent"` | Pages with scale words | *Who benefits from scalar implicatures, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Chooses scale words deliberately | Ratings and claims read correctly | | Legal and compliance | Avoids scale words that overstate | Fewer complaints | | Readers | Understand how strong a judgement is | Better comparisons | Also discussed at [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/#:~:text=form%20a%20scale%20with%20the%20following%20properties) If the stronger meaning were ruled out by the word alone, every weaker word would produce the same rate. The rates run from nearly everyone to almost no one. *Readers who infer that the stronger word does not apply* | The speaker says | Readers conclude the speaker means | Share of readers | | --- | --- | --- | | some | not all | 96 % | | possible | not certain | 92 % | | try | not succeed | 62 % | | like | not love | 50 % | | believe | not know | 21 % | | intelligent | not brilliant | 8 % | Van Tiel, B., Van Miltenburg, E., Zevakhina, N. and Geurts, B., Scalar diversity, Journal of Semantics, 2016, Experiment 1, Table 3. 43 word scales, 25 participants recruited in the USA, one excluded. ## What is truth-conditional pragmatics in relation to relevance theory? Truth-conditional pragmatics, associated with François Recanati, holds that pragmatic processes help decide what a sentence says, beyond what it implies. Relevance theory shares this view. Meaning is settled with context from the start. *How to act on truth-conditional pragmatics with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Ask whether a claim is true in your context | The page itself | Truth that depends on context | | SEO | State the context in which a claim holds | The page itself | Claims readers apply correctly | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "applies to" OR "valid for"` | Pages that state conditions | *Who benefits from truth-conditional pragmatics, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | States the conditions under which claims hold | Claims that stay correct in use | | Legal and compliance | Defines scope and conditions | Defensible statements | | Readers | Know when a claim applies to them | Correct use of information | Also discussed at [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphor/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphor/#:~:text=commits%20relevance%20theory%20to%20a%20form%20of%20truth%2Dconditional%20pragmatics) ## What is linguistic underdetermination of a query? Linguistic underdetermination is the fact that the encoded meaning of a sentence never fully determines the thought it expresses. Every utterance needs inference to be understood. A query underdetermines the need behind it in the same way. *How to act on linguistic underdetermination with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Rephrase a short query in two ways and compare results | Google search | What the words left open | | SEO | Group the page's queries by the different needs the same words carry | Search Console export and Google Sheets | Needs one query leaves undetermined | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:"your two-word topic"` | Pages for short, open queries | *Who benefits from linguistic underdetermination, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | SEO | Groups the needs behind one short query | Pages or sections for each need | | Content team | Serves the main needs behind a short query | Visitors with different needs stay | | Readers | Find their need among the readings | Relevant results | ## What is epistemic vigilance when people read a page? Epistemic vigilance is the set of mechanisms by which people check whether to believe what they are told, described by Dan Sperber and colleagues in 2010. Understanding and believing are separate steps. A page can be understood perfectly and still not be believed. *How to act on epistemic vigilance with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Check who says it and whether it fits what you know | About this result on Google | Whether to believe it | | SEO | Give readers reasons to believe: source, author, evidence | Rich Results Test for author markup, Google Scholar | Belief earned beyond understanding | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "source" OR "study"` | Pages that give grounds for belief | *Who benefits from epistemic vigilance, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Gives source, author and evidence | Pages believed as well as understood | | Management | Builds credibility | Trust that converts | | Readers | Have grounds to believe | Justified trust | ## What role does theory of mind play in relevance theory? Theory of mind is the capacity to attribute beliefs and intentions to others. Inferential communication depends on it. Understanding what someone means requires imagining what they have in mind. *How to act on theory of mind with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Ask what the writer wants you to think | The page itself | The intention behind the text | | SEO | Write with a clear picture of what the reader already thinks | Google Forms, support questions | Pages that anticipate the reader's mind | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "you might think" OR "you may wonder"` | Pages that address what readers think | *Who benefits from theory of mind, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Anticipates what readers think and wonder | Pages that feel written for the reader | | Customer support | Shares what customers usually think | Content that meets real thoughts | | Readers | Feel understood | Engagement | ## What is metarepresentation in understanding a writer? Metarepresentation is the ability to represent a representation, such as a thought about a thought or an utterance about an utterance. Irony, quotation and attributed speech rely on it. So does every judgement about what a writer intended. *How to act on metarepresentation with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Tell apart what a writer says from what they quote | The page itself | Whose view is expressed | | SEO | Mark quotations and attributed views clearly | The page itself | Readers who do not mistake quoted views for yours | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "according to" OR "claims that"` | Pages with attributed views | *Who benefits from metarepresentation, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Marks quotations and attributed views | Passages quoted correctly by others | | Legal and compliance | Keeps attribution clear | No misattributed statements | | Readers | Know whose view they are reading | Correct understanding | ## What did Billy Clark contribute to relevance theory? Billy Clark is a linguist whose textbook Relevance Theory, published by Cambridge University Press in 2013, is a standard introduction. He applied the theory to stylistics and to teaching. His work made the theory usable beyond specialists. *How to act on relevance theory applied to style with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Use a textbook introduction to understand the theory | Library access, Google Books preview | A reliable overview | | SEO | Use the theory to review the style of key pages | A checklist of effect and effort | Style that helps understanding | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:guide` | Guides to review for style | *Who benefits from relevance theory applied to style, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Reviews style for effect and effort | Pages that read well | | Management | Adopts a clear standard for writing | Consistent quality | | Readers | Read pages that are easy to follow | Pleasant reading | ## What did Tim Wharton contribute to relevance theory? Tim Wharton is a linguist who extended relevance theory to non-verbal communication in Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication from 2009. Gestures, facial expressions and tone of voice fall within its scope. Communication is wider than words. *How to act on non-verbal communication with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Notice what images and layout communicate beyond words | The page itself | Non-verbal signals | | SEO | Check that images, icons and layout support the message | Microsoft Clarity heatmaps | Non-verbal signals that help or distract | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com inurl:video OR inurl:gallery` | Pages that rely on non-verbal content | *Who benefits from non-verbal communication, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Product team | Aligns images, icons and layout with the message | Pages that communicate at a glance | | Content team | Chooses images that support the text | Better engagement | | Readers | Understand from layout and images too | Faster orientation | ## How does eye-tracking measure processing effort? Eye-tracking records where and how long the eyes rest while reading. Longer fixations and regressions indicate greater processing effort. It turns the effort that relevance theory speaks of into milliseconds. *How to act on eye-tracking with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Notice where you reread a sentence | The page itself | Places that cost effort | | SEO | Use scroll and attention maps as a free stand-in for eye-tracking | Microsoft Clarity heatmaps and scroll maps | Sections that hold or lose attention | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:"your topic"` | Pages to map first | *Who benefits from eye-tracking, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Product team | Uses heatmaps as a free stand-in | Sections improved where attention drops | | Content team | Finds passages readers skip | Pages people read | | Readers | Read pages tested for attention | Easier reading | ## What does pupillometry measure about reading effort? Pupillometry measures the dilation of the pupil, which increases with mental effort. It is an involuntary signal of cognitive load. Effort that a reader would never report shows in the eye. *How to act on reading effort with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Take a break when reading feels tiring | A timer | Effort you notice | | SEO | Ask test readers to rate effort after each section | Google Forms with a rating scale | Effort readers would not mention unasked | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com filetype:pdf` | Dense documents that likely cost effort | *Who benefits from reading effort, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Asks readers to rate effort per section | Hard sections found and fixed | | Product team | Sees effort readers would not report | Lower effort across the site | | Readers | Spend less effort | Less fatigue | ## What is an event-related potential in reading research? An event-related potential is the brain's electrical response to a specific event, recorded at the scalp and averaged over many trials. It shows processing with millisecond precision. Language researchers use it to see interpretation as it happens. *How to act on event-related potentials with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Read research summaries on how the brain processes language | Google Scholar | Evidence on reading | | SEO | Use findings on reading to place key words where they fit expectation | Google Scholar review articles | Wording that is easier to process | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "your topic"` | Pages to review for unexpected wording | *Who benefits from event-related potentials, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Uses reading research to choose expected wording | Text that is easier to process | | Management | Bases writing standards on research | Quality that is grounded | | Readers | Read text that flows | Easier understanding | ## What is the N400 component in understanding words? The N400 is a negative brain wave peaking about 400 milliseconds after a word, larger when the word is hard to integrate into its context. Marta Kutas and Steven Hillyard reported it in 1980. It is a measure of how well meaning fits expectation. *How to act on the N400 with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Notice words that feel out of place in a sentence | The page itself | Places where meaning does not fit | | SEO | Replace unexpected words in key sentences with the words readers expect | Google Ngram Viewer, a colleague's reading | Words that are harder to integrate | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "leverage" OR "synergy"` | Jargon that may not fit the reader's expectation | *Who benefits from the N400, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Replaces unexpected words with expected ones | Sentences understood at once | | SEO | Uses the words readers expect in key passages | Passages matched to searchers' language | | Readers | Read without stumbling | Smooth understanding | ## What is the P600 component when a reader reconsiders? The P600 is a positive brain wave around 600 milliseconds after a word, associated with reanalysis of structure or interpretation. Lee Osterhout and Phillip Holcomb described it in 1992. It marks the moment a reader has to reconsider. *How to act on the P600 with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Reread a sentence that forced you to start over | The page itself | Sentences that mislead first | | SEO | Rewrite garden-path sentences that force rereading | Hemingway Editor web version, a read-aloud test | Sentences that cost reanalysis | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:"your topic"` | Key pages to check for garden-path sentences | *Who benefits from the P600, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Rewrites sentences that force rereading | Fewer misreadings | | Customer support | Receives fewer questions from misread sentences | Shorter contacts | | Readers | Understand sentences the first time | Less effort | ## What is electroencephalography in relevance research? Electroencephalography records electrical brain activity through electrodes on the scalp. Event-related potentials are derived from it. It is the method that lets claims about processing effort be tested. *How to act on brain research on reading with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Be careful with marketing that claims brain proof | Google Scholar | Claims backed by research | | SEO | Avoid brain claims in content that research does not support | Google Scholar | Defensible statements | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "brain" OR "neuro"` | Pages with brain claims | *Who benefits from brain research on reading, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Legal and compliance | Avoids unsupported brain claims | No misleading neuroscience | | Content team | Uses research carefully | Credibility with informed readers | | Readers | Get honest science | Protection from neuro-myths | ## What role does Bayesian inference play in pragmatics? Bayesian inference updates beliefs in proportion to new evidence. Computational models of pragmatics, such as the rational speech act model by Michael Frank and Noah Goodman, treat interpretation as such an update. They formalise what relevance theory describes. *How to act on Bayesian inference with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Update your view in proportion to how strong new evidence is | A notes app | Beliefs that follow evidence | | SEO | Show readers how strong the evidence for each claim is | The page itself | Claims readers can weigh | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "evidence suggests" OR "likely"` | Pages that state strength of evidence | *Who benefits from Bayesian inference, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Shows the strength of evidence for claims | Pages trusted for their calibration | | Management | Encourages decisions that follow evidence | Better judgement | | Readers | Weigh claims by their evidence | Calibrated beliefs | ## What is the surprisal of a word in reading? Surprisal is the negative log probability of a word given its context, a measure from information theory. The less predictable a word, the higher its surprisal and the longer people take to read it. It gives processing effort a number. *How to act on surprisal with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Searcher | Slow down at unexpected words and check their meaning | A dictionary | Understanding of unusual terms | | SEO | Check how common key terms are and explain rare ones | Google Ngram Viewer, Google Trends | Terms that raise reading effort | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "rare technical term"` | Pages with rare terms to explain | *Who benefits from surprisal, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Explains rare terms and prefers common ones | Pages readers process faster | | SEO | Checks which terms readers actually use | Wording that matches searches | | Readers | Read without being slowed by rare words | Easier understanding | ## What does relevance theory mean for search? A relevant result is one that gives the reader the greatest cognitive effect for the least effort, in their situation. Keyword match is one piece of evidence for that. Pages that answer the question behind the query with little effort are relevant in the sense the reader's mind uses. *How to act on relevance theory for search with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | SEO | Rate each important page for effect and effort on a simple scale | Google Sheets with two columns | Pages relevant in the reader's sense | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com intitle:"your topic"` | Pages to rate | *Who benefits from relevance theory for search, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | SEO | Rates pages for effect and effort | Priorities that make pages relevant to readers | | Management | Measures relevance beyond keyword match | A truer picture of content quality | | Readers | Get results with more effect for less effort | Better searches | ## What should a page do about relevance theory? Say the point early, remove effort that produces no effect, and give the reader a conclusion they did not have. Address what the query implies as well as what it says, and earn belief as well as attention. A page that asks back what the reader needs lowers the effort of finding the relevant part, which is the idea of Supervised Search. *How to act on relevance on a page with free means* | Who | What to do | Free means | What it shows | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | SEO | Say the point early, cut effort without effect, add a conclusion readers lacked | The page itself, Microsoft Clarity | A page with more effect for less effort | | SEO | Ask readers what they need and route them to the part that fits | The page itself, Google Forms | Less effort to find the relevant part | | Your site | Check your own domain; replace example.com with it | `site:example.com "what do you need"` | Pages that ask first | *Who benefits from relevance on a page, and how it pays off in search results* | Who benefits | In everyday use | How it pays off | | --- | --- | --- | | Content team | Says the point early and cuts effort without effect | Pages that end the search | | Product team | Adds a question that routes readers to their part | Less effort to find the relevant passage | | Readers | Get insight quickly and are guided to their part | Search that ends on the page | [Search intent](https://www.searchresultoptimization.com/digital-marketing/search-intent/) First published 2026-09-14. Last revised 2026-09-16.