Manipulative Discourse Strategies in EFL Teaching: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22333/ijme.2025.10429Keywords:
cooperative principle; classroom discourse; gaslighting; manipulation; relevance theory; speech acts.Abstract
The paper evaluates the prevalence, examines various forms, and studies the cognitive-pragmatic mechanisms underlying manipulative discourse strategies within English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom environments. Employing frameworks such as Speech Act Theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1975, 1979; Purtseladze, 2024), the Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1978, 1989), Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson, 1986/95a; Wilson and Sperber, 2004; Carston & Powell, 2009), and critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1989; Van Dijk, 2006; Maillat & Oswald, 2011), the study investigates the manner in which teachers’ linguistic choices may subtly exert psychological pressure on learners. Data for this research were obtained through a survey administered to 100 undergraduate students enrolled across various faculties at Tbilisi State University.
The results demonstrate that manipulative discourse is both widespread and multifaceted: gaslighting accounts for 42% of reported instances, followed by shaming (28%), guilt-tripping (20%), and triangulation (10%). These strategies frequently overlap, producing complex perlocutionary effects that students cannot pragmatically ignore. Through explicit, covert, and inclusive assertives, teachers often generate cognitively inescapable implicatures that violate conversational maxims, prompting students to internalize blame, experience anxiety, and question their competence. The findings indicate that manipulative communication in educational contexts extends beyond traditional pragmatic models, revealing how evaluative cues, sarcastic remarks, and comparative framing affect students’ state of mind and academic performance. By identifying these communicative patterns and their psychological impact, the study underscores the need for increased pedagogical awareness and the development of ethical, supportive classroom discourse practices.
The research findings were partially presented at the Sixth International Conference on Second Language Teaching/Acquisition in the Context of Multilingual Education (SeLTAME 2025).
The results of this study, both theoretical and practical, are applicable across a wide range of educational contexts. By identifying and analysing the cognitive-pragmatic mechanisms underlying manipulative discourse strategies, the research addresses a significant gap in existing pedagogical and pragmatic scholarship.
References
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
Bara, B. G., Bosco, F. M., & Bucciarelli, M. (1999). Simple and complex speech acts: What makes the difference within a developmental perspective? In M. Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXI Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 55–60). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Birch, A. (2015). 30 covert emotional manipulation tactics: How manipulators take control in personal relationships. CreateSpace.
Carston, R., & Powell, G. (2009). Relevance theory — New directions and developments. In E. Lepore & B. C. Smith (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of language. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199552238.003.0016
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman.
Grice, H. P. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 9: Pragmatics, pp. 113–128). Academic Press.
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press.
Holland, M. (2023). Narcissistic Triangulation: Definition, Examples, & How to Respond. Retrieved 20 November 2025 from https://www.choosingtherapy.com/narcissistic-triangulation
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
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Gaslighting. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved November 29, 2025, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gaslighting
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Guilt-trip. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved November 29, 2025, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guilt-trip
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
Pickrell, J. E., Bernstein, D., & Loftus, E. (2004). Misinformation effect. In R. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions (pp. 345–361). Psychology Press.
Purtseladze, V. (2024a). 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. (2024b). Stigma–gaslighting semantics: Language, manipulation and cultural stereotypes in Georgia. Georgian Psychological Journal, 1, 182–192. https://doi.org/10.60131/gpj.1.2024.8553
Purtseladze, V. (2025a). The art of manipulation: Exploring gaslighting in James Thurber’s narratives. Online Journal of Humanities ETAGTSU, (10), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.55804/jtsu2346-8149.2025.09.11
Purtseladze, V. (2025b). Gaslighting, politeness, and the illusion of cooperation: A study of manipulative discourse. International Journal of Advanced Research, 13(11), 228–240. https://doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/22107
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.
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. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Blackwell.
Vaknin, S. (2014). Malignant self-love: Narcissism revisited (Unabridged ed.). Lidija Rangelovska (Ed.). Narcissus Publications.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Blackwell.
Zhang, R. (2024). Study of irony on speech act theory. Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, 7(1), 188–195. https://doi.org/10.25236/AJHSS.2024.070129
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) - Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms: Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License, which allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their personal website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Authors may enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to a repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
