Analysis Of My Mother's English By Amy Tan

The definition of Logos can be variant dependent on the topic of logic that is being covered, but the continued consistency is the presence of proof. In Amy Tan’s article, “My Mother’s English,” Logos is prominently present later into the passage when Tan is proving that her mother can understand complex passages even though she may not be able to speak complete sentences. In Tan’s passage she defends her mother by saying, “You should know that my mother’s expressive command of English belies how much she actually understands. She reads Forbes report, listens to Wall Street Week, converses daily with her stockbroker, reads all Shirley MacLaine’s books with ease--all kinds of things I can’t begin to understand.” (3). In order to prove her logic

of her mother being capable of understanding more than she can articulate, she provides examples of activities her mother does ranging from passages of writing or conversing complicated topics. By providing evidence, Tan is capable of defending her logic and her need to defend her mother’s English.

The examples she provides also cause an oxymoron between what she can speak and what she can understand, but the evidence substantiates Klass’ claim. Another example of Tan providing proof is when she states that whenever she speaks to her mother or husband in “fractured” English. She explains how that she typically falls into this pattern because she finds it logical to do so, she spoke to her mother like that and she speaks to her husband like that; to them their language is intimate. This is proof of Tan’s logic because during the situations she had listed she had felt like it was logical to speak in broken English. In Perri Klass’ article, “Learning the Language,” Klass provides examples of her development of learning medical terminology from indecipherable to an eloquent master of the language. Her example of her state of being incapable to comprehend what the other residents are saying is when she says, “I started out in a state of primeval innocence, in which I didn’t even know that ‘s CP, SOB, N/V” meant ‘without chest pain, shortness of breath or nausea and vomiting.’” (1). This quote shows Klass’ original logic toward the medical language; innocently

oblivious. Eventually, Klass’ fluency toward the language had drastically improved. There is substantiation in her progress in learning the language when Klass states, “I picked up not only the specific expressions but also the patterns of speech and the grammatical conventions; for example, you never say that a patient’s blood pressure fell or that his enzymes rose. Instead, the patient is a subject of the verb: “He dropped his pressure.” (1). Klass provides evidence of her final stages of development in her logicality as she finally comes to understand the language. She had gone from this innocently oblivious woman who had know idea what was being discussed to an expert in medical terminology. She’s now capable of efficiently working alongside her co-workers due to her change in logicality. One’s logicality works in coalition with our emotions to provide proof of our emotions but together they also form a frame of mind and are also a product of the state of mind.