The notion that people who have lived in a country for some time and still struggle with the language do not understand the realities of this country is not new. The idea that the inability to speak the language fluently handicaps an individual in all spheres of life is deeply rooted in the public’s mind. In her essay “Mother tongue,” Amy Tan discusses the problems individuals with poor command of English face due to such perception (291). Giving as an example her mother, whose native language is Chinese, Tan describes attitudes her family faced due to her mother’s “broken English” (291). The author says that there are different kinds of English, including academic English and “simple” English (291). No matter what English an individual speaks, communication should be built on mutual respect and recognition principles.
This paper argues that Tan asserts the following idea throughout her essay: the level of language doesn’t reflect the broadness of a person’s mind and outlook. The mastery of English or any other language is one of an individual’s competencies, like any other. Poor command of English shouldn’t restrict a person’s social contacts nor his ability to deal with this or that problem.
A typical assumption that people who have a poor command of the language are less intelligent than their more literate counterparts is groundless. Tan gives as an example her mother and states: “You should know that my mother’s expressive command of English belies how much she understands. She reads the Forbes report, listens to Wall Street Week, converses daily with her stockbroker, reads Shirley MacLaine’s books with ease—all kinds of things I can’t begin to understand” (291). Tan lets the readers understand that the mastery of English doesn’t mirror a person’s knowledge and abilities in other spheres (291). Language can’t be the measurement for the intellectual level.
The mastery of English doesn’t reflect a person’s abilities in a linguistic sphere as well. Tan confides that she was told to steer away from writing and devote herself to accounting management (291). Moreover, most Asian-American students engage in math or other exact sciences, and very few of them choose literature and languages as a profession. This can be explained by the fact that these students do significantly better in math tests than in English. In her essay, Tan writes, “This makes me think that there are other Asian-American students whose English spoken in the home might also be described as “broken” or “limited.” And perhaps they also have teachers who are steering them away from writing and into math and science, which is what happened to me” (291). The assumptions that language level reflects an individual’s aptitude for this and that profession prove to be baseless and shouldn’t determine an individual’s choice of career.
General inferences about people with poor command of English are not only unjustified; they lower these individuals’ quality of life. Tan illustrates this with the example of her mother and says, “People in department stores, at banks, and in restaurants did not take [mother] seriously, did not give her good service, pretended not to understand her, or even acted as if they did not hear her” (291). Tan’s mother even had to ask her daughter to speak to people for her to get necessary services (291). Individuals with poor command of English face all kinds of discrimination; the inability to express oneself in perfect English leads to social exclusion and rejection.
The command of language can’t be a criterion for determining a person’s intellectual abilities, inclinations, and career options; moreover, it can’t be the ground for social separation and segregation. In her essay, Tan shows that the assumptions about people with a poor command of English are baseless. Notions that these people are less intelligent, do not have talents for literature and languages and in general, and are generally not worthy of high-quality service and support are wrong. They should be eradicated from the public’s mind.
While analyzing this article, I learned to apply critical thinking to written works, drawing inferences from the author’s words and making conclusions as to what idea he/she wanted to express. This skill will benefit my future works as now I can see the concepts behind the words and understand how different concepts may be portrayed with the help of literary means. I learned to carefully examine the evidence for my ideas, which will help me in the future to determine which information is valid and worth to be considered. I learned to critically seek statements that repeat themselves, even though they are written in different words. By removing them, I can improve the precision and clarity of my writing. I learned to plan ahead by thinking of my objectives and goals. Thanks to this skill, I will be better equipped in the future to write a story that is relevant and properly structured.
Work Cited
Tan, Amy. “Mother tongue.” The World is a Text: Writing, Reading, and Thinking about Culture and Its Contexts, 2003, p. 291.