Introduction
This essay reflects on the transformative lessons learned during ENGL 102, an English course that shifted my understanding of writing from a rigid, rule-based task to a dynamic act of communication shaped by purpose, audience, and context. Initially, I viewed “good” writing as the use of complex vocabulary and formal language in all situations. However, through rhetorical analysis, personal reflection, and engagement with Amy Tan’s essay “Mother Tongue,” I have come to appreciate that effective writing prioritises intentional communication over perfection. Tan’s exploration of the multiple “Englishes” she employs, influenced by her cultural and personal values, mirrors the adaptive strategies I have begun to adopt in my own writing process. This essay examines two key realisations from ENGL 102: first, that writing involves purposeful decision-making tailored to specific goals; and second, that personal experience and identity profoundly shape even academic writing. By drawing on Tan’s insights and connecting them to my development as a writer, I aim to illustrate how writing is a flexible, authentic act of expression.
Writing as Purposeful Decision-Making
One of the most significant lessons from ENGL 102 is that effective writing stems from purposeful choices rather than strict adherence to arbitrary rules. Early in my academic journey, I believed that impressive writing meant using elaborate language and intricate sentence structures, often at the expense of clarity. I assumed educators valued “fancy” prose over straightforward communication, which frequently resulted in essays that felt forced and disconnected from my true voice. However, engaging with rhetorical analysis in this course revealed that writing is fundamentally about connecting with an audience, not merely performing for one.
Amy Tan’s “Mother Tongue” crystallised this shift in perspective. In her essay, Tan discusses how she adjusts her language when speaking or writing for her mother, opting for simplicity and accessibility over complexity to ensure understanding (Tan, 1990). This deliberate choice reflects her underlying value of emotional connection, prioritising her mother’s comprehension over any external expectation of sophistication. Tan’s approach resonated with a personal struggle I faced before ENGL 102. For instance, in earlier assignments, I often overwrote, using jargon or lengthy sentences that obscured my intended message. Reflecting on Tan’s strategy, I realised that my goal should be to express rather than impress. As a result, in my rhetorical analysis essay for this course, I focused on clarity, employing direct explanations and concrete examples to guide the reader through my arguments. This shift mirrors Tan’s adaptability; just as she uses personal anecdotes and vivid imagery to evoke emotion, I learned to value precision and accessibility in my writing, aligning my choices with the assignment’s context and purpose.
Furthermore, this lesson underscores a broader principle: good writing must respond to situational demands. Whether analysing a text, narrating an experience, or constructing an argument, the writer’s decisions—about tone, structure, and style—should reflect the needs of the audience and the objectives of the piece (Bazerman, 2008). ENGL 102 taught me to ask critical questions before drafting: Who am I writing for? What do I want them to understand? How can I best achieve that? By applying this mindset, I have begun to view writing as a flexible tool, adaptable to diverse contexts, rather than a fixed set of standards to be met.
Writing as Shaped by Personal Experience and Identity
A second pivotal lesson from ENGL 102 is that writing, even in academic contexts, is deeply influenced by personal experience and identity. Initially, I perceived academic writing as an impersonal exercise, detached from my own background or beliefs. I avoided the first person, assuming it was inappropriate for scholarly work, and suppressed personal anecdotes in favour of what I thought was “objective” analysis. However, studying Tan’s “Mother Tongue” challenged this assumption, demonstrating how a writer’s background can enrich their work when used intentionally.
Tan’s essay vividly illustrates how language shapes identity and how her cultural heritage as a Chinese-American influences her linguistic choices (Tan, 1990). She recounts experiences of linguistic prejudice and the different “Englishes” she navigates, using personal stories not as mere decoration but as evidence to support her argument about the power and complexity of language. Her values—authenticity, cultural identity, and emotional resonance—permeate her writing, giving it a distinctive, relatable voice. Inspired by Tan, I began to experiment with incorporating my own perspective into my assignments in ENGL 102. For example, in a reflective piece, I included a personal anecdote about a communication challenge I faced, linking it to broader themes of audience awareness. Initially, this felt risky, as I worried it might undermine the formality of the task. Yet, I discovered that grounding my analysis in honest reflection strengthened my argument, making it more engaging and credible.
This realisation aligns with broader academic discourse on the role of identity in writing. Scholars argue that acknowledging personal experience in academic work can enhance critical thinking and foster a deeper connection between the writer and their subject (Elbow, 1995). My values—honesty, precision, and accessibility—now shape my approach, much like Tan’s values inform hers. For instance, I strive to make complex ideas approachable, often breaking them into digestible parts for the reader. By integrating my experiences and beliefs, I no longer see academic writing as a separate, impersonal entity but as an extension of my voice and goals. This shift has made writing feel more authentic and rewarding, allowing me to build arguments that resonate on both intellectual and personal levels.
Conclusion
In conclusion, my journey through ENGL 102, coupled with the profound insights from Amy Tan’s “Mother Tongue,” has reshaped my understanding of what it means to write well. I have learned that effective writing is not about adhering to a universal standard of formality or complexity but about making intentional choices that suit the purpose, audience, and context. Tan’s deliberate adaptation of language to connect with her mother taught me to prioritise clarity and expression over superficial impressiveness. Similarly, her use of personal experience as a foundation for broader arguments showed me that identity and background can enrich academic writing when used purposefully. These lessons have transformed my writing process, encouraging me to adapt flexibly, communicate clearly, and embrace my authentic voice. As I continue to develop as a writer, I aim to apply these principles consistently, ensuring that each piece reflects both the demands of the situation and the person behind the words. Ultimately, ENGL 102 has equipped me with a nuanced perspective on writing as a dynamic act of communication, one that I will carry forward into future academic and personal endeavours.
References
- Bazerman, C. (2008) Handbook of Research on Writing: History, Society, School, Individual, Text. Routledge.
- Elbow, P. (1995) Writing with Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process. Oxford University Press.
- Tan, A. (1990) ‘Mother Tongue’, in The Threepenny Review, no. 43, pp. 7-8.
(Note: The word count, including references, is approximately 1050 words, meeting the requirement of at least 1000 words. Due to the reflective nature of the essay, primary reliance is placed on Tan’s text and personal insights from the course, with additional academic sources used to contextualise broader arguments. URLs are not included as I am unable to provide verified, direct links to the specific editions of the referenced works at this time.)
