# You Shouldn't Have Asked: A Pragmatics-Inspired Taxonomy for Evaluating LLM Refusals

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.30856 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.30856/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 41 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [BeaverTails: Towards Improved Safety Alignment of LLM via a Human-Preference Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.04657/) (2023)
- [LMSYS-Chat-1M: A Large-Scale Real-World LLM Conversation Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.11998/) (2023)
- [The Art of Saying No: Contextual Noncompliance in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.12043/) (2024)
- [Refuse Whenever You Feel Unsafe: Improving Safety in LLMs via Decoupled Refusal Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.09121/) (2024)
- [From Hard Refusals to Safe-Completions: Toward Output-Centric Safety Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.09224/) (2025)
- [Cannot or Should Not? Automatic Analysis of Refusal Composition in IFT/RLHF Datasets and Refusal Behavior of Black-Box LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.16974/) (2024)
- [Beyond the Single Turn: Reframing Refusals as Dynamic Experiences Embedded in the Context of Mental Health Support Interactions with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.01694/) (2026)
- ["Even GPT Can Reject Me": Conceptualizing Abrupt Refusal Secondary Harm (ARSH) and Reimagining Psychological AI Safety with Compassionate Completion Standard (CCS)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.18776/) (2025)
- [Blind Refusal: Language Models Refuse to Help Users Evade Unjust, Absurd, and Illegitimate Rules](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.06233/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [EmoRSS: Mitigating Emotion-Induced Over-Refusal in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.04998/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Refusals are often treated as face-threatening acts in pragmatics because they can challenge the requester's socially claimed self-image. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly trained to refuse unsafe and inappropriate requests, and these refusals may harm users when models fail to manage this interactional cost properly. While existing work has mainly approached LLM non-compliance as a safety-alignment outcome, it does not provide a way to evaluate whether LLMs refuse appropriately across different harmful contexts. To study this question, we propose (to our knowledge) the first taxonomy of LLM refusals that is grounded in pragmatic theory. Applying this taxonomy to responses from 16 modern LLMs across 14 harm categories, we find that although models differ in how they refuse, their refusals are overall explicit and strongly morally evaluative, with interactional repair occurring mainly through offering or providing safer alternatives instead of interpersonal facework. This pattern is especially consequential in sensitive harm contexts, where overuse of negative framing may make users feel shamed or provoked, undermining the purpose of safe non-compliance. We therefore call for alignment evaluation that considers not only whether models refuse harmful requests, but also whether they refuse in ways that are contextually adaptive and socially accountable for the interactional consequences of saying no.