拒絕請求屬於高面子威脅的言語行為，華語母語者在拒絕的同時還需考量維持發話者與受話者間人際關係的平衡。華語母語者在拒絕請求時，常透過理由、客套語、條件化句型、句末語氣詞等方式降低語氣的直接性，但不同社會條件下，這些策略如何變化，仍有進一步釐清的必要。因此，本研究聚焦臺灣華語母語者，探討社會地位與社會距離兩項變因如何影響拒絕請求時的拒絕策略選擇與緩和語使用，並進一步思考其對華語文語用教學的啟示。

本研究以40位臺灣華語母語者為對象，採語篇補全測驗蒐集語料。每位受試者作答12題，共回收480筆有效語料。研究者以「拒絕策略」與「緩和語策略」兩層面進行編碼與分析。拒絕策略包含直接拒絕、否定意願、提出建議、說明阻礙因素、否定需求、進行拖延、提出批評與自謙；緩和語策略則包含客套方式、可能性弱化、程度副詞弱化、句末語氣詞、條件化句型、轉折語氣、正向評價與玩笑方式。量化分析以描述統計、Friedman檢定與Wilcoxon signed-rank test檢視不同條件下之差異，並輔以質化語料說明詳細的語用功能。
在拒絕策略方面，研究結果顯示，華語母語者拒絕請求時高度依賴「說明阻礙因素」，顯示理由型拒絕為最核心的表達方式。社會地位對拒絕策略的影響較為明顯：面對高位者時，母語者較常使用理由與拖延的策略，較少直接拒絕；面對平輩時，直接拒絕、提出建議與提出批評較常見；面對低位者時，雖然仍常使用理由型策略，但整體表達較高位情境直接。相較之下，社會距離對拒絕策略的影響較小，只有「進行拖延」在近距離條件下較顯著使用，顯示熟人之間的拒絕較常保留互動空間。

在緩和語方面，研究結果顯示，母語者最常使用「條件化句型」，其次為「客套方式」和「句末語氣詞」。社會地位同樣比社會距離更能影響緩和語配置：高位情境中，客套方式與條件化句型明顯較多；平輩情境中，句末語氣詞使用最為普遍；低位情境中的整體緩和語密度則相對較低；至於社會距離，僅「玩笑方式」在近距離條件下達顯著差異。由此可見，社會地位影響的是拒絕表達的禮貌程度與配置，社會距離則較多影響互動風格。

本研究認為，華語母語者拒絕請求的語用表現並非靠單一句型完成，而是深層拒絕策略與表層緩和語共同運作的結果。此發現對華語文教學具有實質意義：教師在課堂上不宜只教導學習者固定拒絕句型，而應將社會地位、社會距離與語用分寸一併納入教學設計，並透過情境對比與角色扮演等方式，培養學習者在真實互動中做出合宜拒絕的能力。研究結果亦可作為教材編寫與語用教學設計之參考，補足現有教材中拒絕請求內容不足的問題。

Refusing a request is a high face-threatening speech act. When native speakers of Mandarin Chinese refuse a request, they must also attend to the interpersonal balance between the requester and the refuser. Native speakers of Mandarin often reduce directness through reasons, polite expressions, conditional constructions, and sentence-final particles. Still, how these strategies vary across different social conditions requires further clarification. This study therefore focuses on native speakers of Taiwan Mandarin and investigates how two variables, social status and social distance, affect strategy choice and mitigation use in request refusals. It also considers the implications of these findings for Chinese pragmatics instruction.

The participants were 40 native speakers of Taiwan Mandarin. Data were collected through a Discourse Completion Test (DCT). Each participant responded to 12 scenarios, yielding 480 valid responses. The data were coded and analyzed on two levels: refusal strategies and mitigation strategies. Refusal strategies included direct refusal, unwillingness, suggestion, explanation of blocking factors, negation of need, postponement, criticism, and humble politeness. Mitigation strategies included polite expressions, softening of possibility, degree adverb mitigation, sentence-final particles, conditional constructions, adversative markers, positive evaluation, and joking. The quantitative analysis employed descriptive statistics, the Friedman test, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to examine differences across conditions, supplemented by qualitative analysis to explain the pragmatic functions in detail.

The findings on refusal strategies show that native speakers of Mandarin rely heavily on explanation of blocking factors, indicating that reason-giving is the core pattern in request refusals. Social status had a stronger effect on refusal strategy choice. When responding to higher-status interlocutors, speakers more often used reasons and postponement and were less likely to refuse directly. In peer interactions, direct refusal, suggestion, and criticism appeared more frequently. When responding to lower-status interlocutors, speakers still commonly used reason-based refusals, but their overall responses were more direct than those found in higher-status situations.By contrast, social distance had a weaker effect on refusal strategies. Only postponement showed a significant difference, appearing more often in close-distance situations, which suggests that refusals among familiar interlocutors tend to preserve more interactional space.

The findings on mitigation show that conditional constructions were the most frequently used form, followed by polite expressions and sentence-final particles. Social status again exerted a stronger influence than social distance. In higher-status situations, polite expressions and conditional constructions appeared significantly more often. In peer interactions, sentence-final particles were the most salient feature. In lower-status situations, the overall density of mitigation was relatively lower. As for social distance, only joking showed a significant difference, appearing more often in close-distance situations. These results suggest that social status mainly affects the degree and configuration of politeness in refusals, while social distance more strongly shapes interactional style.

This study argues that request refusal in Mandarin is not accomplished through a single sentence pattern. It is jointly constructed through the interaction of deep-level refusal strategies and surface-level mitigation forms. These findings carry practical implications for Chinese language teaching. Teachers should not limit instruction to fixed refusal formulas. Instead, they should incorporate social status, social distance, and pragmatic appropriateness into classroom design, and use contrastive scenarios and role-play activities to help learners develop the ability to produce appropriate refusals in real interaction. The results may also serve as a reference for textbook writing and pragmatics-oriented curriculum design, especially in addressing the current lack of materials on request refusal in Chinese language textbooks.

Allami, H., & Naeimi, A. (2011). A cross-linguistic study of refusals: An analysis of pragmatic competence development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.010
Attardo, S. (2000). Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6), 793–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00070-3
Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words (J. O. Urmson & M. Sbisà, Eds.; 2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1962)
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55–73). Newbury House.
Bella, S. (2011). Mitigation and politeness in Greek invitation refusals: Effects of length of residence in the target community and intensity of interaction on non-native speakers’ performance. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1718–1740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.005
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1989). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 196–248). Ablex.
Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1989). Politeness theory and Shakespeare's four major tragedies. Language in Society, 18(2), 159–212. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500013464
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Cansler, D. C., & Stiles, W. B. (1981). Relative status and interpersonal presumptuousness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17(5), 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(81)90034-2
Chen, M. (2023). Comparison of high- and low-context differences between China and the West. Frontiers in Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(8), 161–168. https://doi.org/10.54691/fhss.v3i8.5553
Chen, R. (1996). Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(1), 61–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00069-9
Chen, Y. (2020). SAYING 'NO' IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE: EFL LEARNERS' ELICITED REFUSALS. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 18(1), 31-67. https://doi.org/10.6519/TJL.202001_18(1).0002
Chang, Y. F. (2021). THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERLOCUTOR SENSITIVITY IN THE REALIZATION OF SPEECH ACTS OF APOLOGY AND REFUSAL. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 19(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.6519/TJL.202101_19(1).0001
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2006). Linguistic politeness in Mexico: Refusal strategies among male speakers of Mexican Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(12), 2158–2187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.05.004
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008). Politeness in Mexico and the United States: A contrastive study of the realization and perception of refusals. John Benjamins.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm: Selected papers from SICOL-1981 (pp. 111–137). Hanshin Publishing Company.
Gass, S. M., & Houck, N. (1999). Interlanguage refusals: A cross-cultural study of Japanese-English. Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110809879
Gao, G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2018). Communicating effectively with the Chinese. SAGE Publications.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Doubleday Anchor Books.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press.
Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-O
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. Routledge.
Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in Korean and American English: A comparative study of Korean ESL learners and native speakers. Multilingua, 23(4), 339–364. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2004.23.4.339
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press.
Li, X., & Lin, L. Q. (2015). A pragmatic study on the speech act of refusal by Chinese EFL learners. Language and International Studies, (13), 23–45.
Mandala, S. (1999). Exiting advice. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 9, 89–111.
Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: “Face” revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(5), 451–486.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 59–82). Academic Press.
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching Pragmatics: Trends and Issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289–310. doi:10.1017/S0267190511000018
Tatsuki, Donna & Houck, Noel. (2010). Pragmatics: Teaching Speech Acts (Tesol Classroom Practice Series).
Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(2), 143–179. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000528
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold / New York: Oxford University Press.
方淑華（2018）。臺籍母語者與日、美籍學習者華語拒絕語用研究及教學建議。博士論文，國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學系，臺北市。
王愛華（2001）。英漢拒絕言語行為表達模式調查。外語教學與研究，33（3），178-185。
冉永平（2006）。語用學現象與分析。北京大學出版社。
曲禹宣（2013）。現代漢語拒絕言語行為與策略及其教學探究。碩士論文，國立政治大學華語文教學碩博士學位學程，臺北市。
李櫻（2012）。語用研究與華語教學。正中書局。
周樹江、董傳傑（2014）。禮貌原則視角下的會話沉默。外語學刊，(5)，32–36。
胡瑞雪（2015）。法籍華語學習者與臺籍華語母語者拒絕策略之對比分析。中原華語文學報，(16)，31-80。
栗原祐美（2024）。華語口語中反對意見表達之語步結構：母語者與日籍學習者比較分析。語文與國際研究，(31)，35-52。https://doi.org/10.53106/181147172024060031003
栗原祐美、鍾曉芳（2016）。台灣大學生言語行為之研究：反對意見表達中的社會地位、語境與語氣設定的作用。語文與國際研究，(16)，57-80。https://doi.org/10.3966/181147172016120016003
高婉瑜（2009）。兩性拒絕行爲的比較研究－以台南市爲例。興大人文學報，(42)，143-170。https://doi
袁筱惠（2017）。臺灣入門級華語教材比較研究。碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。org.proxyone.lib.nccu.edu.tw:8443/10.30092/JHCLANCHU.200903.0005
陳梅影（2016）。臺灣學生與馬來西亞僑生於請求與拒絕行為之道歉語分析。臺灣華語教學研究，(12)，27-42。https://doi-org.proxyone.lib.nccu.edu.tw:8443/10.29748/TJCSL.201606_(12).0002
彭喬渝（2019）。華語回應拒絕之語用策略分析及其教學應用。碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
張玲瑛（2021）。現代漢語「謝謝」的語用與語篇功能探析。華文世界，(127)，56-75。
張絮茵（2011）。商業華語拒絕言語行爲之認知原型與框架。華語文教學研究，8(1)，75-98。https://doi.org/10.6393/JCLT.201104.0075
張絮茵（2012）。商務漢語拒絕言語行為研究。華語文教學研究，9(1)，73-98。https://doi.org/10.6393/JCLT.201203.0074
劉怡君（2006）。現代漢語委婉言語之語用策略及語言形式——以臺灣地區為例。碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學國際與僑教學院華語文教學研究所，臺北市。
僑務委員會（2024）。學華語向前走。https://www.huayuworld.org/
謝佳玲（2010）。華語拒絕請求的策略分析：語體與語境的作用。臺灣華語教學研究，(1)，111-137。https://doi.org/10.29748/TJCSL.201012.0006