annabellelukin
  • Home
  • About
    • My publications
    • Research supervision
  • Halliday's Functional Grammar
    • Getting started with functional grammar
    • Halliday's textual function
    • Halliday's interpersonal function
    • Halliday's experiential function
    • Halliday's logical metafunction
  • Corpus Resources
    • How to page
  • Curso en La U de La Pampa
    • Módulos 1-2
    • Módulos 3-4
    • Módulos 5-6
    • Lang como semiotica-social
    • Key texts for analysis
    • Handouts and slides
    • Follow up
  • Have you read ...?
    • Malinowski
    • J.R. Firth

 Dear Tony, why ‘birth mother’ is so wrong ...

4/10/2013

2 Comments

 
On the day Simon Crean was getting ready to end his ministerial career, PM Gillard was giving the speech of her life. If you haven’t watched it, do yourself a favour. It was a cracking apology given to the mothers and children and families affected by forced adoption in the period of the 1950s to 1970s.

The speech was detailed and pulled no punches. Gillard called the practice “coercive” and “brutal”; “unethical”, “dishonest” and often “illegal”. Babies were “snatched away” before their mothers had even held them in their arms.

Gillard’s audience responded with tears and applause. The PM had listened and heard their stories. She even seemed to be holding back her own tears as she told an audience whose attention she held completely: “You loved your children, and you always will.”

If you want to connect with your audience, to share something with them, to apologise to them, they have to be ‘you’ and not ‘them’. If you want to talk to someone, rather than about them, you need to use the grammar of the second person. This is what Gillard did. The image below is a set of “concordance lines” for the word “you” in Gillard’s speech. It shows how many instances, and the textual environment in which she invoked the word.
Picture

Concordance lines for 'you', from Gillard's National Apology for Forced Adoptions speech

To this use of the second person, add that when Gillard used ‘I’, she was largely talking the words of mothers whose stories she’d heard.
Picture
Concordance lines for ‘I’, from Gillard’s National Apology for Forced Adoptions

At the end of her speech, Gillard acknowledged the Senate committee who produced the report on forced adoption. She acknowledged Professor Nahum Mushin of Monash, who had overseen the national consultation and the reference group. And she noted that Mushin and his reference group had drafted the apology statement.

Their advice to the government had been “invaluable”. Clearly, Gillard’s speech was a collective effort, with input from people directly affected by forced adoption and people who had heard and collated the many painful stories of the period.

This is why her speech rang clear and true.

Then along bumbled Tony Abbott, with a speech one could reasonably assume was largely his own effort. It started with his own personal experience of adoption – of thinking for over two decades he was the biological father of a child his girlfriend gave up for adoption. Painful though it may have been, it wasn’t quite analogous to the stories that the PM had described as “manipulation, mistreatment and malpractice”.

Abbott’s personal experience was the only one he recounted. Despite the plethora of stories painfully told and documented, none made it into his speech.

 Abbott’s speech had a lot of ‘I’. It all referred to himself.

Picture

Concordance lines for 'I', from Abbott's National Apology for Forced Adoptions speech

It had even more ‘we’. It was the ‘we’ that was apologising and atoning for the legacy of the practice of forced adoption – it never meant ‘you and me’.

Those to whom the apology was in theory directed were referred to as generic groups, or by the third person pronoun:

This is a tragedy for them and for our nation and we must atone for it.

The only ‘you’ in Abbott’s speech which addressed the audience came when some began to heckle him.

A couple even walked out. Why? Because Abbott referred to “birth parents”.

If you don’t know anything of the pain suffered by mothers who were forced to give up children for adoption, you might think it reasonable to distinguish “birth parents” from the “adoptive parents” who raised children.

But Abbott must have thought he had nothing to learn on this subject. Otherwise he, or an advisor, might have read the senate committee report. Or at least the first page of it, where, after a brief introduction, the report has a section titled “The language of adoption”. Not much more than 500 words into the senate committee’s report, Abbott, if he’d troubled himself, would have read:

Adoption is a difficult subject to write about in a manner acceptable to everyone affected by it. Forced adoption even more so.

And then:

Mothers who were forced to give up children for adoption generally reject the terms 'birth mother' or 'biological mother', and some reject 'natural mother'. The preferred term is often simply 'mother'.

Gillard had got this message. Abbott sounded like he hadn’t even tried.
This column was first published by the NTEU here
2 Comments
Thomas Bloor
12/17/2013 01:34:32 am

I don't know much about Australian politics, but I strongly sympathise with your praise of Gillard and your critique of Abbott. And , to put it mildly, the horror of enforced adoption (aka kidnapping) vastly complicates the issue of the terminology of kinship relations. However, the implicit claim that the only mother of any child is the woman who gave birth to that child is a slight on women who have adopted and lovingly cared for children. The assumption that the only 'real' parent is the biological parent is quite widespread and is offensive to adoptive parents in general.

Reply
Annabelle Lukin
1/6/2014 08:14:49 am

Dear Tom,
Thanks for taking the trouble to read and comment. The issue I am commenting on is not about adoption in general. I know both kids who have been adopted in the typical sense of the word, as well as one of the people affected by 'forced adoption' (a term that, when you think about it, doesn't really make sense, as you suggest in your email), who was instrumental in campaigning for the formal apology.
Regards
Annabelle

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Annabelle Lukin is a linguist in the Centre for Language in Social Life, Macquarie University.

    RSS Feed

    Categories

    All
    Abc
    Commoners
    Entitlement
    Gilliard
    Hockey
    Language Of War

    Archives

    May 2014
    April 2014
    December 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.