In the intricate realm of second language acquisition, mastering refusal strategies is one of the most challenging yet essential pragmatic skills learners must acquire. A groundbreaking study recently published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications delves into how Chinese learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) navigate the art of saying “no” in a manner that is both linguistically appropriate and socially sensitive. This investigation uncovers the nuanced interplay among L2 proficiency, power dynamics, and the types of eliciting speech acts that prompt refusals, offering profound insights into how evolving language competence shapes pragmatic behavior.
At the heart of this study lies an exploration of how learners at varying proficiency stages implement refusal strategies, both single and combined. Unlike mere vocabulary acquisition, the use of refusal tactics embodies complex sociopragmatic competence—knowing not just what to say, but how, when, and to whom. The research highlights a clear trajectory: as learners’ proficiency improves, they increasingly employ indirect refusal strategies marked by adjuncts and longer utterances, reflecting a heightened awareness of politeness conventions embedded within the English language.
Central to this inquiry was the deployment of Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs), a methodological tool designed to elicit refusals across a spectrum of social scenarios differing in power relations and eliciting acts. Despite their broad applicability, the study critically addresses the limitations of DCTs, noting that their non-interactive nature may amplify strategic complexity while underrepresenting real-time negotiation nuances that arise in face-to-face interactions. This observation underscores the importance of triangulating DCTs with dynamic role-play data in future research to better mirror authentic conversational exchanges.
An especially compelling finding is the differential preference for specific refusal strategy combinations across proficiency levels. Learners with lower English skill favor a pattern characterized by expressing regret followed by providing a reason, excuse, or explanation. In contrast, advanced learners tend towards beginning their refusal with expressions of gratitude or appreciation before subsequently justifying the refusal. This progression signals not only linguistic improvement but also an evolving grasp of the pragmatic subtleties that govern politeness and face-saving in English.
The study also reveals that power relations significantly influence refusal strategy choices. For instance, learners alter their approach depending on whether they are refusing a superior, such as a professor, or a peer like a classmate. This sensitivity to social hierarchy and relational context is indicative of deepening sociopragmatic competence—learners’ ability to modulate language based on interlocutor status and situational norms rather than relying on formulaic responses.
Beyond power dynamics, the type of eliciting speech act—such as requests, invitations, or offers—was shown to shape the frequency and selection of refusal strategies. This suggests that pragmatic skills are not static but dynamically weighted according to the pragmatic force of the initiating act, requiring learners to continuously calibrate their responses. Such flexibility is a hallmark of advanced pragmatic proficiency and a critical target for language instruction.
The researchers advocate for pedagogical implications grounded in these insights. They propose a phased approach to teaching refusals: beginning with the introduction of contextually appropriate refusal strategies, followed by immersive, role-play-based exercises that simulate real-life interactions across varying power relations and eliciting acts. Such pedagogies emphasize practical competence, helping learners internalize sociopragmatic rules and thereby enhance communicative effectiveness.
Importantly, the study suggests that these pedagogical interventions hold promise not only for improving learners’ refusal strategies but also for sustaining engagement and motivation by situating learning within authentic social contexts. This approach aligns with contemporary theories of language instruction that emphasize meaningful interaction over rote memorization, highlighting the social nature of language acquisition.
However, the research is not without its acknowledged limitations. The absence of native speaker comparison data constrains interpretations regarding whether advanced learners’ refusal behaviors represent alignment with English pragmatics or are influenced by transfer effects from their first language. Gathering parallel data from native speakers performing matched tasks could illuminate the extent to which learner strategies converge with or diverge from target language norms.
Furthermore, the study predominantly involved college-age participants, raising questions about the generalizability of findings across age groups. Language acquisition trajectories vary with cognitive and social development, suggesting that younger learners’ sociopragmatic competences and refusal strategy repertoires may unfold differently. Future investigations are urged to incorporate a broader demographic spectrum to capture developmental dimensions of refusal strategy acquisition.
The study’s implications extend into theoretical realms, intersecting with pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and applied linguistics. It bridges the gap between formal linguistic competence and pragmatic performance, elucidating how learners’ strategic behavior reflects internalized social norms and communicative goals. As L2 proficiency increases, learners not only expand their lexical and grammatical resources but also refine their ability to navigate complex social interactions—a process intimately tied to cultural and contextual understanding.
Moreover, the findings contribute to a growing body of research emphasizing the importance of teaching language in its social context. Recognizing that refusal is a speech act laden with face-threatening potential, the study underscores the necessity for learners to master not just linguistic forms but their socially appropriate uses. This dual focus enables learners to build meaningful relationships and avoid intercultural miscommunication, a crucial competence in today’s globalized environment.
The research also signals broader implications for cross-cultural communication, given that refusal strategies are culturally situated and vary widely across languages. By systematically examining Chinese EFL learners, the study sheds light on how cultural norms from one language community transpose into another, sometimes facilitating communication and other times causing pragmatic failure. Such insights can inform intercultural training and contribute to fostering mutual understanding in multilingual settings.
Technically, the research methodology combines quantitative analysis of refusal strategy frequency with qualitative description of strategy combinations. This mixed-method approach allows for a granular understanding of how L2 proficiency, power relations, and eliciting acts interlink to shape linguistic behavior. The detailed categorization of refusal components such as regret, gratitude, reasons, and adjuncts enriches the analytic framework and provides a replicable model for future research in pragmatic language use.
As the field moves forward, the study’s authors emphasize the need for longitudinal designs to capture the evolving nature of refusal strategies over time. Such investigations could reveal how learners’ pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic competencies co-develop and how instructional interventions accelerate or modify these trajectories. The integration of real-world communicative data will be vital in grounding theoretical models in empirical realities.
In essence, this multifaceted research offers an unprecedented window into the delicate art of refusal in a foreign language—a task that transcends vocabulary and grammar to encompass culture, identity, and social awareness. Its findings resonate with language teachers, learners, and researchers alike, promising to refine pedagogical strategies and deepen our understanding of how second language users negotiate social interactions with ever-increasing sophistication.
Above all, this study reiterates the centrality of context in language learning, reminding us that language functions as a social tool embedded in power structures and cultural expectations. To say “no” effectively is to say “yes” to social harmony and relational nuance—a powerful lesson for all involved in the journey of acquiring another language.
Subject of Research: The study investigates how L2 proficiency, power relations, and eliciting speech acts influence the use and combination of refusal strategies among Chinese EFL learners.
Article Title: How to say “no” in a foreign language: the role of L2 proficiency, power relations, and eliciting acts
Article References:
Lu, Q., Zhang, M., Chen, Y. et al. How to say “no” in a foreign language: the role of L2 proficiency, power relations, and eliciting acts. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1517 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05537-w
Image Credits: AI Generated
