Culpeper’s example shows that both rude/rudeness and impolite/impoliteness are associated with saving face. However, an analysis also shows that rude/rudeness terms are commonly used in areas related to history and humanities and, on the other hand, impolite/impoliteness terms are commonly used in communication science and linguistics (Ogiermann, 2009).Lancaster University (2014) argues that face is an emotionally invested concept that can be enhanced, lost or maintained and more importantly, must be attended to by constant interaction. By showing the use of rude/rudeness to be more frequent and especially in a political context, this investigation similar to Culpeper’s implies the concept of face is also on loan to individuals from the society. Therefore, rude/rudeness terms are used in interactions with the objective of maintaining the integrity of the face through face-work. Then it follows that rude/rudeness and impolite/impoliteness actually occupy a similar conceptual space regardless of whether the face-attacking behavior is intentional or not where impolite is essentially a subset of the definitions of rude (Lancaster University, 2014). With the understanding of politeness as a set of norms that influence strategic acts of individuals reflected in their nonverbal and verbal conduct defined by their culture, impolite/impoliteness can correctly be said to be intentional. However, Locher (2010) claimed that a face-saving compromise was reached but no one was left happy.