maket_N_verjin.qxp


101

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika

On Refusal Strategies 
in Modern English

Refusals and rejections are forms of negation.Almost as soon as we are born, we can use
negation, indicating by gesture or other behavior that we
reject, exclude or disagree with something.

The aim of the present article is to study refusals and
rejections (that are forms of negation) and to present those
strategies that the speaker applies to make his/her refusal
tactful and felicitous.

“Refusing” means, essentially saying “no, I will not do
it” in response to someone else’s utterance, in which he has
conveyed to us that he wants us to do something and that he
expects us to do it.

The focus of our attention here are particularly those refusal strategies that the
speaker applies to decline a request. In other words, our aim is to study the interplay
between requests and refusals.

In terms of pragmatics, requests and refusals are automatic sequences called
“adjacency pairs” in the structure of the conversation. “Adjacency pairs” is a
termonological word combination used for certain consecutive speech turns that are
closely related (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973). They can be described as automatic
sequences consisting of a first part and a second part produced by two successive
speakers in the way that the second utterance is identified as related to the first as an
expected follow-up. Having uttered the first part, the speaker immediately expects
his/her conversational partner to produce the second part of the same pair. The most
common adjacency pairs are greeting - greeting, thanking - response, request -
refusal/acceptance, apology - acceptance, and question - answer. Managing adjacency
pairs successfully is part of “conversational competence”.

Request-refusal is an important adjacency pair in that both requesting and refusing
are face threatening acts (FTA), and therefore demand special attention from the
speakers, so that the message can be conveyed in a socially acceptable manner. While
requests are pre-event acts, refusals are post-event acts. In everyday life it is not easy to
refuse. If you give a flat refusal, it may be interpreted as more than just the refusal itself.
In contrast, it can cause both the requester and the requestee a feeling of discomfort. Let
us consider the following example of a flat or direct refusal of request.

“Oh, Daddy, can’t you give her something to make her
stopscreaming?” asked Nick.

“No. I haven’t any anaesthetic”, his father said.
The husband in the upper bunk rolled over against the wall. The

Sirarpi Karapetyan



woman in the kitchen motioned to the doctor that the water was hot. Nick’s
father went into the kitchen and poured about half of the water out of the
big kettle into a basin. Into the water left in the kettle he put several things
he unwrapped from a handkerchief.

(E. H., p. 31)

As can be seen in the above mentioned example the speaker makes a direct refusal
to the hearer’s request and the refusal made is likely to create a feeling of discomfort in
the requester (the speaker), as well as in the requestee (the hearer).

The reason for this is that requesting and refusing are face threatening acts. As it is
known face threatening acts (FTAs) impede the freedom of actions (negative face), and
the wish that one’s wants be desired by others (positive face) - by either the speaker, or
the addressee, or both. Requests potentially threaten the addressee’s face because they
may restrict the addressee’s freedom to act according to his/her will (Holtgraves, 2002;
40). Refusals, on the other hand, may imply that what he/she says is not favored by the
speaker. In an attempt to avoid FTAs, interlocutors use specific strategies to minimize the
threat according to a rational assessment of the face risk to participants. In other words
these FTAs lead to a tendency on the part of the speakers to make use of certain refusal
strategies such as indirectness and polite expressions in order to avoid conflict (Brown
and Levinson, 1987). These strategies are various: postponement, hesitation, the
statement of alternative, silent refusal, etc. They represent different semantic formulae. 

A semantic formula may consist of a word, a phrase, or a sentence which meets a
given semantic criterion or strategy. A semantic formula is described as “the means by
which a particular speech act is accomplished, in terms of the primary content of an
utterance, such as a reason, an explanation, or an alternative”. (Bardovi-Harlig and
Hartford,1991: 48).
Postponement.

The speaker uses postponement as a refusal strategy when he is obliged to give an
immediate response to a request and he tries to delay it till some other time. A delay
shows that the refuser has a good reason for refusing and implies that the refuser would
accept or agree if it were possible.

“Who are you?”
“I am Zeno Legge”.
“What do you want at this hour?”
The question wounded me. “My dear uncle”, I exclaimed, “I know

you do not intend it, but you make me feel unwelcome. Come down and
let me in, I beg”.

“Go to your hotel”, he said sternly. “I will see you in the morning.
Good night”. He disappeared and closed the window.

I felt that I let this rebuff pass, I should not feel kindly towards my
uncle in the morning, nor, indeed, at any future time.

(B. Sh., p. 187)

102

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics



It is clear from the example that the hearer (who is the speaker’s uncle) doesn’t
want to comply with the speaker’s request (namely, to let him in) and he delays their talk
till the next morning, instead of directly refusing his request.
The Statement of Alternative.

Another good strategy for making refusals or rejections is the statement of
alternative.

“Pull back that quilt, will you, George?” he said.
“I’d rather not touch it.”
Later when he started to operate Uncle George and three Indian men

held the woman still. She bit uncle George on the arm and Uncle George
said, “Damn squaw bitch!” and the young Indian who had rowed Uncle
George over laughed at him. Nick held the basin for his father. It all took
a long time.

His father picked the baby up and slapped it to make it breathe and
handed it to the old woman.

(E. H. p. 31)

It is seen from the example that in order not to offend his interlocutor the speaker
makes use of the statement of alternative and thus avoids giving a straight refusal.
Hesitation.

When hesitation is used as a refusal strategy, it seems that the speaker hesitates
about his response to a request, i.e. he feels unsure about what to say, but in fact his
response is similar to a refusal.

“I suppose I can call you  Jon?”
“I should think so just”.
“All right!  But you know there’s a feud between our families?” Jon

stammered: “Feud? Why?”
“It’s ever so romantic and silly. That’s why I pretended we hadn’t met.

Shall we get up early tomorrow morning and go for a walk before
breakfast and have it out? I hate being slow about things, don’t you?”

Jon murmured a rapturous assent.
“Six o’clock, then. I think your mother’s beautiful”.

(J. G., p. 93)  

We can easily see that in the given context Jon (the requestee) pretends that he feels
uncertain about what to say, whether to comply or not with Fleur’s (the requester’s)
request to call him Jon, but in fact he doesn’t want his response to sound rude or
insulting.
Vagueness.

Often a speaker can soften his/her refusal by making a vague statement which is
another commonly used refusal strategy. 

103

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika



In most cases modal words are used to attach a sense of vagueness to the
addressee’s response, making a refusal sound less categorical. We can consider the
following example:

“Do you love me?”
“Uh, huh”.
“Will you come over and watch me play indoor?”
“Maybe”.
“Aw, Hare, you don’t love me. If you loved me, you’d want to come

over  and watch me play indoor”.
Krebs’s mother came into the dining-room from the kitchen. She

carried a  plate with two fried eggs and some crisp bacon on it and a plate
of  buckwheat cakes.

(E. H., p. 109)

It is obvious that in this example the modal word “maybe” perfectly works as a
refusal strategy. The addressee doesn’t want to offend the addresser and tries not to make
a sharp refusal, his response is rather vague.
Hedging.

Another refusal strategy is hedging.

WALTER. Where I worked before I taught the children for two or
three hours, and then was paid by their mother, and back always, to my
small room - (with a faint smile) with my cooking, which is not so good.
You will never know how much I owe to you. 

LOUISE. My dear boy. Tell me about your family. Your people in   
Germany. (WALTER stiffens perceptibly into withdrawal, rises and

crosses above the  armchair to R of the table).
WALTER. There is nothing to tell.
LOUISE. There must be something.

(P. Sh., p. 80)

The extract shows that the addressee avoids refusing directly the addresser’s
request (namely, to tell her about his family) and tries to change the subject of the
conversation.
Excuse and Explanation.

This refusal strategy functions to reassure the recipient of the refusal that he/she is
still approved of but there are necessary reasons for refusing the request.

In the following extract it is not difficult to see how excuse and explanation can
function as means of expressing refusals.

CLIVE (showing off to Walter). Yes, it’s going to be brilliant. All Gothic
darkness and calamities. It’s called the “Black Hole of East Suffolk”. 

104

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics



(He rises and crosses to LC; mock grave). 
Sit down and I’ll unfold.
WALTER . No, not now. Your mother is waiting. Excuse me.
(WALTER exits to the kitchen. CLIVE stares after Walter. His gaiety

leaves him at once. There is a pause).
PAMELA. (rising and moving above the table). What’s wrong?
CLIVE. (sitting on the bench). Nothing.

(P. Sh., p. 62)

While making his refusal WALTER (the addressee) apologizes and explains why he
can’t wait until CLIVE (the addresser) tells them a story.

Often an explanation without an excuse may also function as a refusal strategy.

HANSON. Actually, could you lend me five pounds?
ARNIE. I haven’t a cent. It all went on this.
(HANSON has got up. He eyes the armour suspiciously)
HANSON. Oh. (Pause). Actually. Why did you buy it?
ARNIE. As a present.
HANSON. For your parents?
(ARNIE nods)

(D. S., p. 197)

In the given extract  ARNIE (the addressee) rejects HANSON’S (the addresser’s)
request to lend him five pounds through explaining to him why he can’t give him the
money (namely, because he spent all his money on buying a present).
Answer-Requests for Additional Information.

Often by making a request for additional information the speaker makes an attempt to
hide his/her real attitudes and feelings, thus trying to make the refusal less direct and offensive.

This refusal strategy is rather commonly used in everyday communication.

LOUISE. Now try and be a bit more pleasant, will you? (She moves
above the table, removing her rings from her fingers as she goes). Jou-
Jou, it’s washing-up time, are you going to help me?

CLIVE. Can’t we leave it for once?
LOUISE. It’s all right. I can manage perfectly well without you.
(LOUISE exits to the kitchen. There is a pause).
CLIVE (tentatively). I’m sorry I said that about the furniture, Father.

I suppose it was tactless of me.
(P. Sh., p. 69)

It is obvious that in the example the addressee makes use of a good tactic to reject
the addresser’s request – namely, he makes a request for additional information. It
functions as a perfect refusal strategy.

105

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika



Silent Refusal.
A speaker may express his/her refusal in response to a request not only verbally, but

also by non- verbal behavior. 
As is well known, sometimes even the best verbal communication skills are not

enough to create and sustain successful relationships. Very often non-verbal
communication speaks louder than words. The term “non-verbal” refers to a number of
different communication processes - gestures, facial expressions, silence, touch and so on.

Very often we can refuse people’s requests by keeping silence.
In some cases refusals are expressed by means of silence at the same time through

making use of body language, for instance, through shaking one’s head.

It wasn’t any good. He couldn’t tell her, he couldn’t make her see it.
It was silly to have said it. He had only hurt her. He went over and took
hold of her arm. She was crying with her head in her hands. 

“I didn’t mean it”, he said. “I was just angry at something. I didn’t
mean I didn’t  love you”. 

His mother went on crying. Krebs put his arm on her shoulder.
“Can’t you believe me, mother?”
His mother shook her head.
“Please, please, mother. Please believe me”.

(E. H., p. 111)

Here, Krebs’s mother expresses her refusal through silence, just shaking her head
without saying a word.
There can also be cases in which the situation itself prompts that the addressee makes a
refusal to the addresser’s request.

LOUISE. You just can’t mean it. (She stretches across the table and
takes the newspaper). Really, Stanley, there are times when I have to
remind myself about you - actually remind myself.

STANLEY (quietly). Suppose you tell me, then. Educate me.
LOUISE  (loftily). Clive, dear, explain it to your father, will you?

(She opens the paper and prepares to read it).
(Clive continues eating). 

(P. Sh. p., 42)

It is obvious that in this example the situation itself prompts us that CLIVE (the
addressee) refuses LOUISE’s (the addresser’s) request by keeping silence and
continuing eating.

Thus, the analysis carried out shows that refusal strategies are various, that there are
both direct and indirect strategies, the latter being used in order to try to avoid the task
of offending one’s  interlocutors, i.e. one’s partners in dialogue.

As far as the focus of our attention in this article is the adjacency pair of request –
refusal, all the above analyzed strategies refer to requests. By analyzing different refusal

106

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics



strategies an attempt has been made to discover the interplay between requests and
refusals, the various interesting ways in which requests can be rejected.

It should be mentioned, however, that refusals can be used not only in response to
requests, but also to offers, suggestions and invitations.

It is also important to note that the choice of various refusal strategies depends
greatly on different social-cultural factors, which include culture, age, gender, social
distance, social status, etc. 

Thus, the realization of the speech act of refusing involves not only linguistic, but
also pragmatic knowledge. One can have a wide range of vocabulary and a sound
knowledge of grammar, but misunderstandings can still arise, if he/she cannot apply
pragmatic competence appropriately. 

References:

1. Austin, J.L. (1975) How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge-Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press.

2. Bardovi-Harlig; Hartford, B. (1991) Saying “no” in English: Native and Nonnative
Rejections. Urbana, IL: University of Illionois.

3. Brown, P.; Levinson, S.C. (1978) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

4. Close, R.A. (1975) A Reference Grammar for Students of English. Harlow:
Longman.

5. Holtgraves, T. (2002) Language as Social Action. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.  
6. Leech, G.N.; Svartvik, J. (1975) A Communicative Grammar of English. London:

Longman.
7. Levinson, S.C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Searle, J.R. (1976) A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
9. Schegloff, E.A.; Sacks, H. (1973) Opening up closings. // Semiotica, 8.
10. Searle, J.R. (1965) What is a speech act? // Philosophy in  America. / Ed. by

M.Black. London: Oxford University Press.
11. Verschueren, Jef. (1999) Understanding Pragmatics, London-New York: Arnold

Publishers.
12. Wierzbicka, A. (1987) English Speech Act Verbs: (A Semantic Dictionary). Sydney-

New York: Academic Press.
13. Yule, G. (1996) Pragmatics (Oxford Introductions to Language Study). Oxford:

Oxford University Press.
14. http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/refusals/tt.html
15. http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/June-07-aaae.php

107

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika



Sources of Data:

1. Galsworthy J. (1954) To Let. Moscow: Foreign Lang. Publishing House.
2. Hemingway E. (1971) Selected Stories. Moscow: Progress.
3. (1984) Modern English Drama. Moscow: Raduga Publishers.
4. Shaw B. (1977) A Fearless Champion of the Truth. Moscow: Progress.

Ø»ñÅÙ³Ý é³½Ù³í³ñáõÃÛáõÝÁ ųٳݳϳÏÇó ³Ý·É»ñ»ÝáõÙ

êáõÛÝ Ñá¹í³ÍáõÙ ùÝÝíáõÙ ¿ Ù»ñÅÙ³Ý é³½Ù³í³ñáõÃÛáõÝÁ ³Ý·É»ñ»ÝáõÙ£
àõëáõÙݳëÇñíáõÙ »Ý Ù»ñÅÙ³Ý Ñ³ïϳå»ë ³ÛÝ Ó¨»ñÁ, áñáÝù ѳçáñ¹áõÙ »Ý
Ëݹñ³Ýù ³ñï³Ñ³ÛïáÕ ËáëáÕ³Ï³Ý ³Ïï»ñÇÝ, ³ÛëÇÝùÝ` Ù»ñ ùÝÝáõÃÛ³Ý
³é³ñÏ³Ý Ëݹñ³ÝùÇ ¨ Ù»ñÅÙ³Ý ÷áËÝ»ñ·áñÍáõÃÛáõÝÝ ¿ ųٳݳϳÏÇó
³Ý·É»ñ»ÝáõÙ: سÝñ³Ù³ëÝ ùÝÝáõÃÛ³Ý »ÝóñÏ»Éáí ѳÕáñ¹³ÏóÙ³Ý ·áñ-
ÍÁÝóóáõÙ Ù»ñÅÙ³Ý é³½Ù³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý ³é³í»É Ñ³×³Ë ÏÇñ³éíáÕ Ó¨»ñÁ`
Ñ»ÕÇݳÏÁ ÷áñÓáõÙ ¿ µ³ó³Ñ³Ûï»É ¨ í»ñÉáõÍ»É Ëݹñ³ÝùÇ ¨ Ù»ñÅÙ³Ý ÙÇç¨
³éϳ µ³ñ¹ ¨ Ñ»ï³ùñùÇñ ѳñ³µ»ñ³ÏóáõÃÛáõÝÁ:

108

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics