Both Tan and Sedaris write essays about the nature of language and the way in which it affects their everyday life. Specifically, both of them write about what it means to not be able to speak the language of the country that one is in, or at least not be able to speak it as well as other people. In this way, the two essays are similar. However there are also big differences between the works both in terms of style and also in terms of the way in which they relate to language. This essay will be begin by explaining the biggest difference between them and will then go on to show how can be seen to differ in other ways.

Sedaris’ essay tells the story of him moving to Paris so that he can learn French. In many ways it is the story of what happens when one does not know a language and the way in which this can make one feel strange, and not at home in a particular area. Initially, Sedaris describes feeling out of place and worried at his French school, as well as being intimidated by his teacher and his fellow students. However, the story follow as his French improves and it ends with a sense of victory as he is able to understand his teacher, something that he was never able to do before. As such, Sedaris’ essay can be seen to move from a sitation of being a stranger to feeling more and more at home. It is not end with him being fluent, but at least it offers some promise and ends confidently. This can be compared to Tan’s essay, which is much more careful, and in several ways could be described as being sad. The story focuses on the Tan’s own experiences of growing up in America with a Chinese American mother, and how his experience of her “broken English” meant that his opinion of her changed and that he was not able to view her in the same way that he viewed other people that he knew. Rather than ending on a note of triumph, the essay suggests that many children of Chinese Americans must experience something similar and that this may be one of the reasons why such people are pushed towards mathematics rather than towards writing. As such, while the aim Sedaris’ essay is to present a funny story about learning a language, Tan’s essay is intended to be a more serious thought about the consequences of never being able to fully speak the language of the country you live in and how this can affect you and your family.

This difference in aim can be seen to be reflected in the different styles of the two pieces. Sedaris uses an informal style and makes several jokes throughout his writing. He jokes to the reader in a friendly way and uses pop-culture references in his essay in order to add to the sense of it being informal. He also makes fun of his teacher, and he makes fun of himself when he suggests that the stands out from his classs mates because he is middle-aged and less stylish than they are. It is this ability to make jokes and to laugh at others and at himself that makes Sedaris’ essay confident, funny, and entertaining. In contrast to this, there are very few moments of humour in Tan’s writing and overall it is much more serious. They begin by giving a serious description of themselves as a writer and make it clear that this is something which involves always thinking about language. This is not funny, and the style is less flowing than Sedearis’ and it draws the reader in by being thoughtful and careful, rather than by being funny and witty. Also, Tan does not deal as much with one particular event in his life, or one series of events. Rather he is interested in presenting what it means to grow up in a home with broken English, and, as such, this can be seen to be something that concerns his entire life time, not simply something that happened once. It can be seen therefore that the different aims of the two pieces are directly reflected in their different styles, one makes unserious jokes about particular episodes while another refers seriously to a long period of time.

It can also be argued that a major difference between them is the fact that Sedaris is only learning a new langauge, but that he is already very confident with English and that he know he will return to his home country and still be able to speak it. In contrast to this, Tan presents his mother as someone who lives in America and does not return to China. She is not just someone in a foreign country, but she could also be described as someoen who almost has no country as she lives in America but can only relate to it through her broken English. As such, she is almost not a whole person, either to herself or to her son.

In conclusion therefore, while both essays deal with language they do so in different ways. One tells a funny story from the view of someone who is at least confident in one language and able to learn another and return home, but the other almost present someone who has no real language at all. It is this which is the main diffference between and which can explain other differences.