I argue that the excerpt “Mother Tongue” by Amy Tan is effective in arguing that “perfect English” (Tan 22) does not is not necessary to demonstrate a person's intelligence or intelligence. credibility and we must recognize this type of thinking as a cultural bias; She does this by engaging and appealing to the emotions of her audience. She first engages her audience by creating common ground with them. She begins by saying: “I am not an expert in English or literature. I cannot give you more than personal opinions on the English language and its variations in this or other countries” (Tan 1). Although she has a master's degree in linguistics, she doesn't brag about it because it will likely scare her audience, but instead says she just wants to give her opinion on language. Readers of this excerpt would be interested to know his opinion on language. She uses this strategy to encourage her audience to read her excerpt. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In an attempt to appeal to her audience's emotions, she uses her mother's "broken or fractured English" (Tan 8) to convey the way we judge people. credibility because of their form of English. She explains how people treated her mother rudely because of her English. She also says that her mother's English language at one point limited her perception of her. Along the way, she adds extrinsic evidence and philosophy to make her argument more effective. Tan has a very large audience, his main audience is mainly the English speaking community. This language community is made up of any individual who speaks and understands English, no matter what form of English they speak, whether it is perfect or broken English. This linguistic community refers to imperfect English as “broken or fractured” (Tan 8). Its secondary audience will be everyone who reads this excerpt. The ethical problem Tan discusses is that people in general tend to judge the credibility of others based on their form of English which may not be “perfect English” (Tan 22); this automatically limits their credibility in our mindset. We believe that anyone whose form of English is broken English has limited knowledge and we break their intellectual level. We believe that a person's level of English reflects the quality of what they have to say. We believe that lack of English equals lack of intelligence. This is not entirely true, because lack of English does not equate to lack of intelligence. Speakers of “perfect English” (Tan 22) are not automatically smart and smarter than broken English speakers and vice versa. A broken English speaker may have limited English, but they are just as proficient as a perfect English speaker. Tan carefully proves this with his mother's story. She explains that although her mother's English may be considered 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 due to their form of English can influence how we treat them. Tan mentions that due to her mother's limited English, most people she came into contact with in department stores, banks and restaurants don't take her seriously, don't give her good service and pretend not to understand it or perhaps act as if they do. I didn't hear her. Tan, appealing to the emotions of his audience, uses astory about his mother to get his audience to sympathize with his mother. Tan's mother, aware of the limitations of her English, often forces her to make business calls to ask for information or even yell at her business partners because she knows her business partner might not take her seriously or might not even hear and understand clearly what she should say. Tan adding that this experience she had with her mother would help her make her argument more effective to her audience; By narrowing down Tan's audience, some of his secondary audience might be minorities, or even better Chinese Americans who identify with that, having to at some point be in his shoes where they have to translate sentences to their parents for better understanding. In paragraph 14, Tan uses the encounter with his mother in the hospital to show the struggle that broken English speakers can have. Even though Tan's mother spoke her best English to the doctor, the doctor still did not understand her clearly and did not give her the information she requested, making her wait unnecessarily. This again appeals to the emotions of her audience, she causes her audience to sympathize with her mother and her audience may also find this relatable. Additionally, Tan adds extrinsic evidence to strengthen his argument. She cites a conversation she had with her mother, which she filmed and transcribed. In this conversation, his mother tells him about a political gangster who has the same last name as his family's. This conversation is relevant because she conveys her mother's form of English to her audience. She continues to affirm her mother's credibility and knowledge of the English language. She mentions that her mother “reads Forbes reports, listens to Walls Street Week…reads all of Shirley MacLaine's books with ease” (Tan 7) and has daily conversations with her stockbroker. She mentions this to establish her mother's knowledge of English. Tan uses this extrinsic evidence to build on his pathos. This extrinsic evidence makes his argument more effective; this served as a segue into his pathos. This helps her audience to know her mother's English language knowledge level and her credibility. Additionally, Tan has a good understanding of the ethical issue she is writing about. His experiences with his mother give him a good philosophy when it comes to broken English. Tan throughout his argument throws out humorous statements. In paragraph 11, his description of his mother's actions is quite humorous: she speaks out loud to him to tell his stockbroker, and they actually travel from California to New York to confront his stockbroker's boss. Tan does a really good job of using pathos to strengthen his relationship. In her argument, throughout her argument, she leads her audience to sympathize with her mother. But his repetitive use of pathos weakens the weight of his argument. She rarely used logos. Throughout her argument, Tan talks about "perfect English" and people being judged if they don't speak perfect English, but she doesn't actually say what "perfect English" is (Tan 22), this leaves the audience with many unanswered questions, where does perfect English come from?, who speaks this perfect English?. She gave a glimpse of what perfect English might be, the form of English she uses when speaking about what she writes to a large group of people. Her argument would have been more effective if, instead of leaving her audience confused and wondering what perfect English is, she explained what it is, just as she explained what "broken or broken" English is. fractured” (Tan 8). Just like Tan succeeds in convincing. his audience that the lack.