Much ink and venom have been spilled over the question of what tongues was in the New Testament and what, or even if, it should be today. Most of the dialogue on the topic has been rooted in denominational dogma, cultural tradition, and personal experience instead of clear exegesis of the New Testament texts.
Therefore, if anything in Acts or the rest of the New Testament is to be rightly understood, it must be read and understood as it would have been by those who lived it and first heard it. Any references to God, faith, the Scriptures, or any theological or religious idea was only understood by Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish people in the context of the Tanakh, (a Jewish acronym for the Torah, the Neviim, and the Ketuvim, meaning the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings of Poetry and Wisdom, i.e., the Old Testament).
Applying this principle to the book of Acts, we can recognize and contextualize key elements in the text that can guide our hermeneutic for anything and everything that happens in the text. Thus, we must begin with the socio-religious context that preceded and surrounded the New Testament, and subsequently allow for consideration of later interpretations. It is within this framework that the issue of 'tongues' should be considered.