Certain concepts, such as face(work), intentionality, emotions and metalanguage are often part of impoliteness definitions. Impoliteness implies certain types of ((highly) intentional) behavior, giving or presumed to give offense, in relation to which speech community members uphold a negative attitude. Some of the proposed impoliteness (super)strategies (such as bald on record impoliteness, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, off-record impoliteness and withhold politeness) have been contested, mainly on the same grounds that people have disputed Brown and Levinson’s work. Bousfield (2008) proposes two revisions: to merge positive and negative impoliteness, and the insight that the bald on-record category implies face as well. In contrast, the impoliteness output strategies make up a robust set. But one must take into account both the appearance of the strategy plus an interpretation that it is considered impolite in its context. Impoliteness possesses its own range of formulae, conventionalised for a specific context of use. (such as insults, pointed criticisms/complaints, unpalatable questions and/or presuppositions, condescensions, message enforcers, dismissals, silencers, threats, and negative expressives). This is of course a list of impoliteness formulae in British English. It does not cover taboo words or behaviours. Three key functional impoliteness event types appeared in the examined BE data: Affective impoliteness, which may merely imply unbridled emotion expression in contexts where it is forbidden or abnormal; a more instrumental variant implies the targeted spread of increased emotion, typically anger. Coercive impoliteness searches for value realignment between the producer and the target so that the producer benefits. A very prolific area for the future study of impoliteness involves applications and (the mulidimodality) of CMC impoliteness.