Not everyone will speak in tongues and not everyone defines tongues in the same way. I would pose the question: Why do you wish to speak in tongues?
The Holy Spirit asked me that very question 20 years ago. That was after my wife and I had experienced many biblical-level miracles and spiritual experiences, I asked, "Why can't I speak in tongues?" and the Holy Spirit responded, "After all I've shown you, why do you need to? What do I need to prove to you?"
Something I've noted over my last reading of Acts is making me ponder:
The recording of speaking in tongues as evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit appears to connected to proving
to the Hebraic believers that the salvation of non-Hebraic believers was genuine.
I'm not saying that's the only circumstance it happened, but it appears to be the primary situation it's recorded--thus the primary situation it
needed to be recorded.
Jesus said, "believe and be baptized."
The Holy Spirit first demonstrates to the Hebraic believers on Pentacost that tongues are a sign of His activity, and it's that specific thing--and
only that specific thing--that convinces the Hebraic believers that Jesus will save Gentiles.
We see the curious situation of Philip the deacon going to Samaria (notice, too, that the Hebraic believers were pretty useless evangelizing outside their own community--it's the Hellenist believers who mostly carry the gospel beyond Jerusalem).
The Samaritans believe and are baptized. Peter and John (Hebraic believers) go up to see for themselves, and
they are shown the tongues. Then Philip baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch--no tongues are reported. And that appears to be the consistent pattern.
Where there are Hebraic believers to be convinced, tongues are reported, otherwise not.
