Convenience-store politeness and the interviewer's leading question
You are listening to a four-minute interview on a school podcast. The guest, Mika, is a Year 13 student who spent three weeks in January at a homestay in Nagano. She also worked eight shifts at a convenience store in Matsumoto, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m., earning ¥950 an hour. Near the end, Mika says: 「店長にはタメ口で話しています。お客様にはもちろん敬語です。最初は店長にタメ口を使うのがこわかったけど、店長が『うちはそういう店だから』と言ってくれたんです。」 The interviewer laughs and asks, 「それって失礼じゃないですか。」 Mika pauses for two seconds and replies, 「うーん、お客様に対してじゃないですから。」 The podcast is part of a listening assessment; you may replay it once. The interviewer's laugh and the word 失礼 are not neutral: they frame the issue before Mika answers.
1. Explain what Mika's use of タメ口 with the store manager suggests about the workplace, and why the interviewer's question is misleading. Refer to specific wording from the interview.
Read the worked answer
Mika's タメ口 is not a failure of politeness; it marks the manager as an insider (uchi) while customers remain outsiders (soto). The manager's 「うちはそういう店だから」 explicitly authorises the style as part of the shop's culture, and Mika says she was initially こわかった, which shows she understood the usual hierarchy. The interviewer's 「失礼じゃないですか」 is misleading because it treats politeness as a fixed rule attached to a person's rank rather than as relational: the same speaker uses 敬語 with お客様 and タメ口 with the manager, and that contrast is the point. Mika's two-second pause and 「お客様に対してじゃないですから」 show she is separating the two audiences. A strong answer would not simply say 'Japanese people use keigo'; it would explain the uchi/soto shift and challenge the question's framing.
2. In 60–90 words, give a defensible judgement on whether Mika was rude, and state one condition that would change your judgement.
Read the worked answer
Within the interview, Mika was not rude: the manager authorised タメ口, and she maintained 敬語 with customers, so the relational rules were observed. The pause and her clarification suggest she was aware of the potential for misreading. My judgement would change if the store's written policy required 敬語 with all staff, or if the manager had not explicitly invited the style; then her タメ口 could be read as presumptuous. The key is evidence of the local norm, not a universal rule.