1.Introduction Polite discourse and impolite discourse are social pragmatic phenomena that are active in daily life. Compared with the politeness research with great results, the lag of impoliteness research is not only reflected in the timeline, but also in the extensiveness and depth of the research field. Since the politeness theory was raised by Brown Levinson (1978/1987), Leech (1983), the studies on politeness phenomena have been paid attention to by pragmatics and social linguistics. Nevertheless, as the main means of human communication, language are not only constitutes a polite expression, but also constitutes an impolite expression. Politeness theory cannot explain the impoliteness in a certain context to some extent, so we need a new model. Since Culpeper came up with an impoliteness model which parallels to Brown Levinson#8217;s theory in 1996, impoliteness model has gradually gained everyone#8217;s attention. In 2008, Bousfield (2008) published a book entitled Impoliteness in interaction. At the same time, another book co-edited by Bousfield and Locher (2008) entitled Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. The advent of these two books has greatly compensated for the gaps in impoliteness study and make a significant contribution to perfecting the politeness study and pragmatic theory. The year of 2008 was hailed as ”The Year of Impoliteness”. So far, many scholars at home and abroad have begun to explore new areas of impoliteness. Looking back at the research of the past few years, we can find that most scholars study the negative effects of impoliteness. They believe that rude speech and behavior will inevitably lead to conflict and negative effects. Later, scholars conducted a lot of research on impoliteness from various angles on their pragmatic functions and rude treatment. Impoliteness can also cause humor effects to be discovered in some way. This paper continues to analyze and present the impolite strategy and also supplement it from American sitcom 2Broke Girls. Literature review Foreign studies on impoliteness are earlier than domestic, and research is relatively systematic. Mills (2003) , Watts (2003) , Kienpointer (1997), Culpeper (2009), Bousfield (2008), etc. did a practical study in this area. In 2003, Mills (2003) devoted a chapter to his book on Gender and Politeness to discuss the difference between politeness and impoliteness. In an article in 2007, Mills (2007) explored impoliteness from a cultural perspective. In 2003, Watts (2003) in his monograph Politeness, in many places, has become (im)politeness, and such changes indicate that impoliteness research is further valued. Kienpointer (1997) also discussed issues such as rude classification and further elaboration of impoliteness. Among them, Culpeper and Bousfield have the most influence. In 2008, Journal of Politeness Research, one of the linguistic journals included in SSCI, published a special issue of impolite research. Since then, impoliteness research has gradually diversified, and the heat has increased year by year. Different scholars have different opinions on the definition of impoliteness. There are different ways of viewing from different aspects, so that it is difficult to define them accurately. In Bousfield and Locher (2008)#8217;s book Impoliteness in Language-Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, Bousfield explains that ”impoliteness is behavior that is face-aggravating in a particular context.” However, according to his understanding of the role of "intention" , Bousfield pointed out that impoliteness can be seen as "face-threatening acts (FTA) that constitutes intentional unpaid and conflicting." According to Bousfield (2008), impoliteness is defined as the opposite of courtesy, rather than seeking to mitigate face-threatening acts (FTAs). Impoliteness constitutes the release of deliberate unrequited and conflicting face-threatening acts (FTAs) that are purposefully accomplished in situations where mitigation is required, with deliberate aggression, that is, face threats are exacerbated, or maximized in some way to improve Caused by facial damage (2008: 262). Culpeper defines impoliteness as the ”being lost” or the communicative behavior perceived by the target. Culpeper (2008) believes that impoliteness occurs when the expression used is not normalized relative to the background of the occurrence; it threatens the recipient's face (and, through this, the face of the speaker), but is not exposed to threats. Communicate to the speaker. Locher (2005) and Watts (2003) noticed the behavior of negative marks, that is, behaviors that violate social norms..., causing negative comments, such as impoliteness or excessive courtesy (or any other vocabulary such as rudeness, aggressiveness, insults, satire, etc. Depending on the degree of violation and the conceptual type of inappropriate behavior. In his book Impoliteness Interaction, Bousfield (2008: 44) argues that impoliteness evolved from the "face management" approach of politeness. However, according to Frost's point of view, there is little consensus on the concept of politeness, ”...how to account for it is certainly problematic” (Bousfield, 2008: 43). The categories vary from person to person. Culpeper (2015: 428) divides impoliteness into inherent impoliteness and imitation rudeness. According to him, in some cases, "the combination of behavior or background does produce rudeness that may be considered inherent." By causing attention to the undesirable aspects of the recipient, the utterance inevitably damages his or her positive face. On the other hand, imitating impoliteness or teasing is rude "it doesn't intend to cause offense", which is still superficial. According to Goffman's suggestion, Bousfiled (2010: 112)divides impoliteness into intentional threats to the face, accidental threats to the face, and unexpected threats to the face that can cause facial damage. Intentional threats in the face may seem to act "in malicious and malicious manner, with the intent to create a public insult." The occasional threat of confrontation may result in ”unplanned but sometimes expected products to be expected”, ”although not malicious.” The unexpected threat faced seems to act innocently, or his offense "seems to be unconscious and uninformed." Bousfield (2010: 115) also pointed out that in theory, a specific action can lead to all three kinds of damage, the three aspects of the difference, at least mainly based on the speaker's intention. Kryk-Kastovsky (2006) discusses openness and concealed impoliteness based on surface structure semantics and implied meaning. In order to distinguish it from the rudeness of crimes in other languages, Bousfield (2008a) is based on three kinds of behaviors that Goffman may face, classifying crimes into intentional threats to face, accidental threats and unexpected threats. However, domestic research has not yet reached this point. Domestic research started late and lacked systematic research. There are no pragmatic monographs devoted to impoliteness, and there are few special studies on impoliteness in existing journals and dissertations. Li Yuansheng (2006:48-49) divided the rude speech act into strategic impolite speech act and non-strategic impolite speech act, and based on the theory of adaptation, the strategic impolite speech act in Chinese was carried out. Research and analysis, research shows that the speaker's impolite speech behavior is in line with the needs of the speaker or listener's psychological world, social world and physical world. His research is not only a preliminary attempt, but he also made great contributions to the study of impolite speech. After that, domestic scholars began to pay attention to it and achieved many research results. Yang Zi and Yu Guodong (2007: 23-28) first defined three types of impoliteness, namely, non-strategic impoliteness, strategic impoliteness, and pragmatic mistakes, and explained the respective causes of three types of impoliteness. . Secondly, under Verschueren's linguistic adaptation theory, Yang and Yu further improved the contextual relationship compliance model, proposed a more explanatory and operability language adaptation model, and finally used the new model to analyze the impoliteness in detail. Of course, such a modification is only a slight adjustment to the adaptation theory, and it has not played a very significant impact. Wang Chuanben (2009: 64-68) divided the rude speech acts into four categories, and interpreted the emergence and results of impolite speech acts from the perspective of adaptation theory. Of course, these studies only further interpret the theory of adaptation in the context of Chinese language, and did not propose a more profound and more influential theoretical model. In addition to using obedience to interpret impoliteness, scholars have done some valuable research from other perspectives, such as Xie Shijian (2009: 73), in a paper: "Complete politeness theory should include politeness strategies and impolite strategies. Politeness and impoliteness are in a continuum of varying degrees." He mainly introduced the impolite theory of Culpeper and Rudanko, and tried to use impoliteness theory into the interpretation of drama. Some scholars have tested the impoliteness strategy. For example, in 2010, Huang Yuying and Luo Changtian used Culpeper's impoliteness principle to analyze and contrast the strong anger discourse in English and Chinese, which further proved the universality of impoliteness. And also, many scholars have introduced some rude development trends and cutting-edge achievements. Liu Chenyan (2019) interprets Wang Xifeng's ridicule from the perspective of impolite speech acts. In short, the study of domestic impoliteness, although not very mature, has become more and more abundant, and the research perspective has become more and more novel. This study analyzes the impoliteness and its pragmatic strategies from the popular American sitcom 2Broke Girls. There have been three main researches on this drama in the past. One is to analyze the translation skills brought about by the differences between Chinese and American cultures, the second is to analyze the humor effect from the perspective of pragmatics, and the third is to study the differences between Chinese and American cultures. Much research has been done on the analysis of 2Broke Girls from a literary and linguistic perspective, but so far few studies have found this famous drama in an impolite framework. Therefore, this study attempts to explore and classify the impoliteness of drama taking the dialogue of characters in the drama as an example by using the impoliteness models of Bousfield#8217;s and Culpeper#8217;s. Impoliteness strategies and their recreational functions are being discussed. This paper tries to present a new perspective on sitcoms. Methodology Due to this paper is a theory-driven study, there are two kinds of methods are used in this paper. Qualitative method is used to classify and analyze the impoliteness strategies, and quantitative method is used to calculate the frequency of the verbal impoliteness. The first step is to collect data. The value of the research in the play was pointed out by watching the sitcom. I attempt to describe the characteristics of impolite words in drama and to identify impolite strategies and their entertainment functions. The second step is to tag the data. The author discovers the impolite entertainment features and strategies adopted in the play. The third step is to extract the data from the second step. Accordingly, I summarize and analyze the number of each recreational function and the impoliteness strategies. References Bousfield, D. (2008). Locher. Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bousfield, D. (2010). Researching impoliteness and rudeness: issues and definitions. Interpersonal Pragmatics. Brown , P. Levinson , S. C. (1978). Politeness: Universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Culpeper, J. (2009). Impoliteness: Using and Understanding the Language of Offence.ESRC project website: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/projects/impoliteness/ Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness : using language to cause offence. (Studies in interactional sociolinguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Culpeper, J. (2015). Impoliteness strategies. In A. Capone, J. L. Mey (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 421-445). (Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy Psychology; Vol. 4). Springer. Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., Sinkeviciute, V. (2017). (Im)politeness and mixed messages. In The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness (pp. 323-355). Palgrave Macmillan. Culpeper, J., Terkourafi, M. (2017). Pragmatic approaches (im)politeness. In The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness (pp. 11-39). Palgrave Macmillan. Haugh, M., and Bousfield, D. (2012). Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics. doi: 10. 1016j. pragma. Haugh, M., Culpeper, J. (2018). Integrative pragmatics and (im)politeness theory. In C. Ilie, N. R. Norrick (Eds.), Pragmatics and its Interfaces (Vol. 294, pp. 213-239). (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series; Vol. 294). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kienpointner, M. (1997). Varieties of rudeness: types and functions of impolite utterances. Functions of Language,4(2), 251-287. Kryk-Kastovsky, B. (2007). Impoliteness in Early English courtroom discourse. Special issues of historical courtroom discourse. Historical Pragmatics. 213-243. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Locher, M, A. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Mills, S. (2004). Class, gender and politeness. Multilingua - Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication,23(1-2), 171-190. Tracy, K. (2010). Impoliteness in interaction - by Derek Bousfield. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 200-201. Tracy, K. (2017). Facework and (Im)politeness in Political Exchanges. In The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness (pp. 739-758). Palgrave Macmillan. Watts, R. Richard, J. (1989). Relevance and relational work: linguistic politeness as politic behavior.Multilingua - Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 8(2-3), 131-166. Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richard J. W., Sachiko I, Konrad, E. (2005). Politeness in Language: Studies in its History. In Theory and Practice (pp. 1#8211;20). 顾真 、 王显志 (2017)，不礼貌语用研究发展，《华北理工大学学报（社会科学版）》(1)。

李元胜 (2006). 汉语中不礼貌言语行为的顺应性研究. 现代语文(语言研究版)(11), 48-50. 刘陈艳 (2019). 从不礼貌言语行为角度解读王熙凤的调侃. 中北大学学报(社会科学版). 刘森林（2014），不礼貌语用策略的社会语用学研究，《外语教学》，35（1）：31-36。

王传奔 (2009). 不礼貌言语行为的顺应性研究. 安徽理工大学学报(社会科学版), 11(1), 64-68. 谢世坚 (2009). 语言非礼貌现象及非礼貌理论的完善. 广西师范大学学报, 45(5), 73-78. 杨子 、 于国栋. (2007). 汉语言语不礼貌的顺应性研究. 中国外语, 4(4), 23-28.