Response to Arts of the Contact Zone "When linguistic ( or literate) interaction is described in terms of orderliness, games, moves, or scripts, usually only legitimate moves are actually named as part of the system, where legitimacy is defined from the point of view of the party in authority - regardless of what other parties might see themselves as doing. Teacher- pupil language, for example, tends to be described almost entirely from the point of view of the teacher and teaching, not from the point of view of the pupils and pupiling ( the word doesn't exist, though the thing certainly does). If a classrom is analyzed as a social world unified and homogenized with respect to the teacher, whatever students do other than what the teacher specifies is invisible or anomalous to the analysis. " (592) When two different parties interact to discuss anything, the view of the party in authority defines what's right and what's wrong. Mary Louise Pratt describes in this paragraph which party has the last word so to speak regardless of what other parties might have to say or what their viewpoints are. This passage is important to Mary's writing because it implies that classes and cultures that are the same have the same viewpoints, while classes and cultures that are linguistic, viewpoints are finalized by the party in power. One example of this interaction she uses is that of teachers and their pupils. "Teacher- pupil language, for example, tends to be described almost entirely from the point of view of the teacher and teaching, not from the point of view of the pupils and pupiling,". Now among the pupils, each of their viewpoints can be discussed amongst e...