This question regards those who support and participate in the modern 'speaking in tongues' and asks what their answer would be regarding the emphasis of scripture.
Note that it is not a matter of 'cessation' (or not). It is a matter of emphasis.
There is but one mention of tongues in the four gospel accounts, namely in Mark 16:17. Although I do not, many do dispute the acceptance of the last sixteen verses of Mark into the canon of scripture so I will pass over that single text as I assume so few would bring it up in answer to my question, that it would be regarded as moot.
There are two mentions in Acts which specifically refer to the apostles speaking in known foreign languages such that persons from other nations, attending the event, were able to understand those foreign languages.
Then there are two mentions more, both of specific and special occasions, one being the matter of gentiles receiving the gospel, 10:46, and then the matter of twelve receiving the gospel who had not (yet) heard of the Holy Spirit, 19:6. In neither case is it stated what, exactly, the 'tongues' were.
These four occasions are the only documented record we have of people actually speaking in tongues and they are all special and specific occurrences upon which the tongues were a sign - a signification.
Paul mentions tongues twenty one times in first Corinthians (never in second Corinthians) and his quest is to regulate the matter, as it appears to have got out of hand and to have become disorderly, so he corrects the situation and applies rules.
Only if an interpreter is present can anyone speak in an unknown tongue. Paul does not comment on the origin or the kind of the tongue in question. He simply regulates all future utterances - of any kind - in the assembly, in such a way that all hearers, on every occasion, must be informed, intelligently - in their own mother tongue - of what is uttered at the gathering, so that all may be edified in an understandable way.
There is no other mention that I can find of such occurrences in the Greek scriptures.
Paul does not mention the subject again to the Corinthians in his second epistle and he never mentions it in any other epistle to any other group or church. (From a purely forensic point of view, this would be circumstancial evidence that only the Corinthians were practising the procedure.)
Paul fails to mention the subject in his epistles, shortly before his death, when he instructs the younger ministers, Timothy and Titus, regarding ministerial conduct, teaching of doctrine, and matters of church government.
John fails to mention tongues in any of his four books. These books are clearly written at a later stage, clearly complete the canon of scripture and clearly contain all that is relevant to the remainder of the Church Age, prior to the Lord's return.
Peter never makes mention of tongues.
James never refers to them.
Nor does the writer to the Hebrews, whoever that author may be.
Matthew makes no historical record in his gospel account.
Luke, likewise, in his gospel account.
If tongues were as central (1) a feature of church activity as some suggest, if tongues are an indication of the presence of the Holy Spirit on every occasion, if tongues are essential to the life of the church, if tongues are also essential to the edification and sound spiritual health of every single believer in the body of Christ . . . . .
. . . then why do we see just four mentions in Acts on special occasions when a sign was necessary to mark a particular event, and why do we see just a chapter, or so, and that only when Paul regulates a matter that had got out of hand ?
Why is there silence from every other book and from every other author ?
Leaving aside the matter of 'cessation' that one might therefore expect that tongues - being a sign, given at a specific juncture in the inauguration of the New Testament - had ceased altogether, is it not questionable that there is a matter of emphasis to be considered ?
To be even more plain, is there not a justifiable question of imbalance with regard to the modern emphasis on the speaking of tongues ?
What is the response of those who participate in the speaking in tongues ?
Please note that I wish to read responses from persons who actively do speak in tongues, as to their thinking regarding the subject ; or to read references to those persons.
I am not looking to read theoretical assumptions from persons who do not actively practice the technique.
Please further note that my research was from Young's Analytical Concordance and covered every occurrence of the word tongue/tongues. It could be that this subject is alluded to in different words which I have not listed.
Also, I have deliberately not referred to the Old Testament and particularly not to prophetic passages, which require specific interpretations, e.g. Isaiah 28:11.
I am interested in keeping the inquiry (and the response) within the compass of that outlined above.
(1) This word added as an edit after the comment (below).