Guilt-Tripping in Gaslighting Discourse: From Self-Trust to “I’m Sorry”
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55804/ETAGTSU.2346-8149.2026.12Keywords:
entailment, gaslighting, guilt-tripping, implicature, manipulative discourse, pragmaticsAbstract
This study examines guilt-tripping as a pragmatic technique used in gaslighting discourse, emphasising how emotional responsibility is linguistically constructed and interpreted. The analysis employs Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson, 1986/95a; Wilson and Sperber, 2004; Carston & Powell, 2009), critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1989; Van Dijk, 2006; Maillat & Oswald, 2011), and perspectives from truth-conditional semantics (Vanderveken, 1990; Seuren, 1998; Nordquist, 2025). The empirical data include dialogue extracts from contemporary film and television, such as 'No One Would Tell' (1996), 'Before I Go to Sleep' (2014), 'Alice, Darling' (2022), 'Resurrection' (2022), 'Priscilla' (2023), and 'Fake' (2024). A qualitative analysis of fifteen dialogue segments explores how explicitly encoded content interacts with pragmatically inferred meaning.
The findings identify three types of guilt-tripping - speaker-referential, hearer-referential, and dual-referential - each representing distinct patterns of responsibility attribution. In all instances, guilt-tripping functions through the interaction of entailment and implicature, whereby ostensibly factual propositions serve as cognitive anchors for evaluative inferences. This mechanism facilitates the internalisation of responsibility while preserving plausible deniability.
The study views guilt-tripping as a linguistically mediated and cognitively rooted strategy, enhancing research on manipulative discourse and providing a structured understanding of guilt induction in gaslighting.
References
Achs, R. (2024). In defence of guilt-tripping. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 108(3), 792–810. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.13009
Carston, R., & Powell, G. (2009). Relevance theory: New directions and developments. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics (pp. 341–360). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199552238.003.0016
Clarke, R. (2013). Some theses on desert. Philosophical Explorations, 16(2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/13869795.2013.787440
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman.
Greenspan, P. (1992). Subjective guilt and responsibility. Mind, 101(402), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/101.402.287
Humeny, C. (2013). A qualitative investigation of a guilt trip [Paper presentation]. Institute of Cognitive Science Spring Proceedings, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada. https://carleton.ca/cognitivescience/wp-content/uploads/Humeny.pdf
Maillat, D., & Oswald, S. (2011). Constraining context: A pragmatic account of cognitive manipulation. In C. Hart (Ed.), Critical discourse studies in context and cognition (pp. 65–80). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.43.04mai
Mooney, A. (2004). Co-operation, violations and making sense. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(5), 899–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.006
Nordquist, R. (2025, April 11). What is entailment in semantics? ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-entailment-in-semantics-1690653
Nordquist, R. (2025). Truth-conditional semantics. ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-truth-conditional-semantics-1692467
Pickrell, J. E., Bernstein, D., & Loftus, E. F. (2004). Misinformation effect. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions (pp. 345–361). Psychology Press.
Purtseladze, V. (2024). Language and manipulation: Exploring gaslighting via speech act theory. Online Journal of Humanities ETAGTSU, 9, 16. https://doi.org/10.52340/PUTK.2024.2346-8149.09.10
Purtseladze, V. (2025). Manipulative discourse strategies in EFL teaching: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. International Journal of Multilingual Education, 26, 126–145. https://doi.org/10.22333/ijme.2025.10429
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 59–82). Academic Press.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge University Press.
Seuren, P. A. M. (1998). Western linguistics: An historical introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
Sorlin, S. (2017). The pragmatics of manipulation: Exploiting im/politeness theories. Journal of Pragmatics, 121, 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.002
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishers.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250
Vanderveken, D. (1990). Meaning and speech acts: Vol. 1. Principles of language use. Cambridge University Press.
Wallace, R. J. (2019). The moral nexus. Princeton University Press.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Blackwell Publishing.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Authors Retain All Rights. Online Journal of Humanities ETAGTSU Has Only the Right of the First Publication.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
