Politeness and impoliteness are, as is well known, interdisciplinary matters dealing with anthropology, ethnology, sociology, psychology, lingustics and pragmatics. To be able to draw the borders after a precise definition of one, the contents or definition of the other must be known. Even though universal common strategies exist for using both of them in some contexts of social interaction, there are also too many different ways of using them, and even more criterions of definitions for them. "If politeness is not communicated, we can assume that the politeness attitude is absent" is one of the maxims defining the politeness principles proposed by Geoff Leech and it may provide us with a starting point for seeking the boundaries marking where and when an attitude or expression starts to be impolite or rude. While impoliteness may start when one does not avoid making others embarrrased or uncomfortable, rudeness may start when one infringes upon or attacks the other's personal territory. But at this point cultural values and estimations come into play. For instance, in a society like that of the Turkish people where the "honour" phenomenon is considered to have the priority over other values, and is also considered to be easily infringed upon, sometimes a simple innocent word or an attitude of a foreigner may cause a misunderstanding. Conversely, some emotional verbal reactions due to some cultural characteristics of the Turkish people may seem or be construed as impolite by people from other cultures. So, this study investigates, from a pragmatic and intercuitural point of view, the linguistic features of disagreement expressipns, language forms for orders and depreciation locutions that could and/or would be meant or construed as impolite or rude in French and Turkish.