The Complexity of English in 'Mother Tongue' by Amy Tan

I argue that excerpt “Mother Tongue” by Amy Tan is effective in arguing that “perfect English” (Tan 22) is not necessary to demonstrate a person’s intelligence or credibility and we must acknowledge this type of thinking as cultural prejudice; She does this through engaging and appealing to her audience's emotions. She first engages her audience by creating a common ground with them. She starts off by saying “I am not a scholar of English or literature. I cannot give you more than personal opinions on the English Language and its variation in this country or others” (Tan 1). Though she has her master’s in linguistics, she did not brag about it because that will most likely scare her audience away but rather she says she just wants to offer her opinions on language. The readers of this excerpt would be interested to know what her opinion on language might be. She uses this strategy to successfully luring her audience to read her excerpt.

In an attempt to appeal to her audiences emotions she uses her mother's “broken english or fractured” (Tan 8) to convey how we judge people’s credibility because of their form of english. She explains how people treated her mother rudely because of her form of english. She also says her mothers form of english at some point limited her perception of her. Along the way she adds in some extrinsic proofs and ethos to help make her argument more effective.

Tan has a very broad audience, her primary audience is mainly the english speech community.This speech community consists of any individual that speaks and understands engligh no matter what form of english they speak, be it perfect or broken english. This speech community that lapel’s imperfect english as “broken or fractured” (Tan 8). Her secondary audience will be anyone who readers this excerpt.

The ethical problem Tan is discussing is that people in general tend to judge other people's credibility because of their form of english which might not be a “perfect english” (Tan 22); this automatically limits their credibility in our mindset. We have the mindset that anyone that their form of english is broken english has limited knowledge and we breach their height of intellectual. We believe that the level of a person’s english reflects the quality of what they have to say, we happen to believe that lack of english equals lack of intelligence. This is not quite true because lack of english does not equal lack of intelligence. Speakers of the “perfect english” (Tan 22) are not automatically intelligent and smarter than the broken english speakers and vise-versa. A broken english speaker might have limited english but they are just as knowledgeable as the perfect english speaker. Tan carefully proves this with a story of her mother. She explains that though her mothers form of english might be considered as broken english by some people, her credibility is not limited; english is not necessary to demonstrate a person's intelligence or credibility. Our limitation of a person because of their form of english can influence how we treat them. Tan mentions that because of her mother's limited english most people she came in contact with in departmental stores, banks and restaurants don't take her seriously, they don’t give her good service, and pretended not to understand her or maybe act like they didn't hear her.

Tan appealing to her audiences emotions uses a story about her mother to get her audience to sympathize with her mother. Tan’s mother being aware of the limitations of her english often makes her make business calls for her to ask for information or even to yell at her business partners because she knows her business partner might not take her seriously or might not even clearly hear and understand what she has to say. Tan adding this experience she had with her mother helps make her argument more effective to her audience; narrowing down in Tan’s audience, some of her secondary audience might be minorities even better Chinese Americans who relates to this, having to at some point happen to be in her shoes where they have to translate to their parents sentences to people for a better understanding.

In paragraph 14 Tan use of her mother's encounter at the hospital shows the struggle broken english speakers can have. Tan’s mother though speaking her best english to the doctor, the doctor still did not understand her clearly and would not give her the information she requested making her wait an unnecessary wait. This again appeals to her audience's emotions, she gets her audience to sympathize with her mother and also her audience can find this relatable.

Furthermore Tan adds in some extrinsic proof to strengthen her argument. She quotes a conversation she had with her mother which she happens to videotape and transcribe. In this conversation her mother talks to her about a political gangster who happens to have the same last name as her family’s last name. This conversation is relevant because it conveys to her audience of her mother’s form of english. She continues to state her mother's credibility and knowledge of the english language. She mentions her mother “reads Forbes reports, listens to Walls Street Week…..reads all of Shirley MacLaine’s books with ease” (Tan 7) and has conversations with her stockbroker daily. She mentions this to establish her mother’s knowledge of english language. Tan uses this extrinsic proof to build on, on her pathos. This extrinsic proof makes her argument more effective; it served as transition to her pathos. This helps her audience to get knowledge of her mother’s level of knowledge of the English language and her credibility. In addition, Tan has a good knowledge of the ethical problem she's writing. Her experiences with her mother gives her good ethos about broken english.

Tan throughout her argument throws in some humorous statements. In paragraph 11 her description of her mother's actions is quite humorous from talking loudly to her to tell her stockbroker, to them actually traveling from California to New York to confront her stockbrokers boss.

Tan does a very good job in making use of pathos to strengten her argumnet, throughout her argument she gets her audience to sympathize with her mother. But her repetitive use of pathos weakens the weight of her argument. She rarely made use of logos.

Tan throughout her argument talks about “perfect englsih” and people being judged if they don't speak perfect english but she doesn't quite convey what “perfect english” ( Tan 22) is, this leaves her audience with many questions unanswered, where does perfect english originate?, who speaks this perfect english?. She gave a hit of what perfect english might be, the form of english she uses when she talks to a large group of people about her writing. Her argument would have been more effective if instead of leaving her audience confused and wondering what is perfect english, she explains what it is just like she explained what “broken or fractured” (Tan 8) english is.

Just as Tan does well in convincing her audience that lack of english does not equal lack of knowledge which is the ethical problem she presents, she also persuades her audience into believing this ethical problem is an issue that should be looked into. Her argument can be counter-argued that the majority of broken speakers english has multiple forms language which means english might not be their first language and this can limit their knowledge in the english speech community. “I think my mother's english almost had an effect on limiting my possibilities in life as well…. But I do think that the language spoken in the family, especially in immigrant families which are more insular, plays a large role in shaping of a child” ( Tan 15). The form of english her mother spoke is the kind of english she grew up and her mother though not intellectually limited because of her form of english has limited knowledge of english and this almost affect her as she mentioned. In the last two paragraphs of her excerpt Tan mentions that a better way to describe her mother’s form of english is “simple” ( Tan 22) and not “broken” ( Tan 22) and “apart from what any critic has to say about [her] writing, [she] knew she had succeded where it counted when [her] mother finished reading [her] book and gave [her], her verdict so easy to read” ( Tan 23). This last to paragraphs summarises her whole excerpt, she explains that there is not broken english but rather there is a simple english that is “watered down” ( Tan 22). Her very last sentence is very effective in her argument because it proved that the fact that her mother’s form of english is broken or better said simple english that doesn’t limit her knowledge and if her mother could say her writing is easy to read then she has a sense of accomplishment.

Tan does not quite provide a solution to the ethical problem she presented. She made her audience aware of the implications of the ethical problem she's discussing but she does not make known to her audience of what is next, how to resolve the issue. Her argument would have been more effective if she had wrote less about her grade school experience and stated a more precise solution to this ethical problem. What her audience can do to help solve the problem.