Written on October 14, 2008 at 10:26 am by Jennie

Ship or Sheep or Disgust?

Filed under Teaching English & Other Languages {16 comments}

I’m preparing the audio files for our Phonetics labs at home, and I’ve been listening to the units in our book, Ship or Sheep?, written by two Brits about 25 years ago. I got to Unit 4 on the [æ] vowel sound and noticed the dialogue they had written using as many words as possible with this sound. The title is “A Bad Hijacker.” Oh boy.

Even before 9/11, I think I would have been very sensitive about this, so I don’t think it’s just because I’m American or what happened 7 years ago. You just don’t write fake dialogues about planes blowing up! Surely there are plenty of other topics you can talk about using words with the [æ] vowel. Who would find it appropriate to talk about a fat lady with a handbag who turns out to be a hijacker on a flight to Amsterdam? And then end the dialogue with a huge explosion as if it were real? Even the book has a little drawing of the plane exploding with the word BANG written across it. ::sigh::

I was liking this book because of their adorable, stereotypical British accents that no one actually speaks with… and then they had to ruin it. I honestly feel a little sick now.

0saves

Save

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed.

http://twentyeighthofmay.wordpress.com/ Sally

Oh I remember that book! (From my days of teaching English in France a few years ago). I always thought that an exercise on shit vs. sheet as well as ship vs. sheep would liven things up a little

Yes, I agree it’s pretty bad taste to use a dialogue about hijackers/ planes blowing up – I’m sure there are other subjects they could have written about instead.

I can’t remember the addents in the book but I can imagine! ha ha

Sallys last blog post..Rude freecycler
http://twentyeighthofmay.wordpress.com Sally

Oh I remember that book! (From my days of teaching English in France a few years ago). I always thought that an exercise on shit vs. sheet as well as ship vs. sheep would liven things up a little

Yes, I agree it’s pretty bad taste to use a dialogue about hijackers/ planes blowing up – I’m sure there are other subjects they could have written about instead.

I can’t remember the addents in the book but I can imagine! ha ha

Sallys last blog post..Rude freecycler
http://updatesfromsusan.blogspot.com/ Susan in Lille

I shake my head in disdain. But I am having trouble trying not to laugh at it! That is just horrible. Really, I don’t think they could make it less offensive. I guess they could have made her a divorcee (or old maid), mentally handicapped in a wheelchair. Man…they just attack all the stereotypes in that little lesson!
Hope you find some lessons you like! Bon courage!

Susan in Lilles last blog post..3rd Race at the Honeymoon-Is-Over Downs
http://updatesfromsusan.blogspot.com Susan in Lille

I shake my head in disdain. But I am having trouble trying not to laugh at it! That is just horrible. Really, I don’t think they could make it less offensive. I guess they could have made her a divorcee (or old maid), mentally handicapped in a wheelchair. Man…they just attack all the stereotypes in that little lesson!
Hope you find some lessons you like! Bon courage!

Susan in Lilles last blog post..3rd Race at the Honeymoon-Is-Over Downs
Russell

I must preface my comments by divulging the fact that I have not read or heard the piece that you refer to in your post.

Whilst I absolutely agree with your points about the sensitivities that we would observe today regarding the subjects of plane hijackings and references to peoples’ appearences etc. I would offer one or two points in the defence of the authors of the piece. If it was written some twenty five years ago, that would put it at a time when aircraft hijacking was a worryingly common ocurrence in the world. During the seventies and eighties there were plenty of groups that felt that the publicity that they received from such an attempt was worth more than gold for their causes and therefore it was the direct action of choice at the time. Just observing the list of signifcant aircraft hijackings on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_aircraft_hijackings) shows that it was quite common given the drastic nature of the crime. Indeed, the increase during that time was really the start of modern airport security that we know and hate today.

So, although it is in bad taste to use the subject matter in the way that they did, the authors were just being very topical in the same way that if we were to rewrite the scrpit today we might choose subjects such as Global Warming or Financial Crises which are just as emotive to some people.
Russell

I must preface my comments by divulging the fact that I have not read or heard the piece that you refer to in your post.

Whilst I absolutely agree with your points about the sensitivities that we would observe today regarding the subjects of plane hijackings and references to peoples’ appearences etc. I would offer one or two points in the defence of the authors of the piece. If it was written some twenty five years ago, that would put it at a time when aircraft hijacking was a worryingly common ocurrence in the world. During the seventies and eighties there were plenty of groups that felt that the publicity that they received from such an attempt was worth more than gold for their causes and therefore it was the direct action of choice at the time. Just observing the list of signifcant aircraft hijackings on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_aircraft_hijackings) shows that it was quite common given the drastic nature of the crime. Indeed, the increase during that time was really the start of modern airport security that we know and hate today.

So, although it is in bad taste to use the subject matter in the way that they did, the authors were just being very topical in the same way that if we were to rewrite the scrpit today we might choose subjects such as Global Warming or Financial Crises which are just as emotive to some people.
http://pensees-en-franglais.blogspot.com/ joy

oh my god! Sick.

My Oxford Practice English manual uses a nasty story about an elderly couple burning to death in their home, right on the first page. To demonstrate the Past Simple. What’s with the Brits?
http://pensees-en-franglais.blogspot.com joy

oh my god! Sick.

My Oxford Practice English manual uses a nasty story about an elderly couple burning to death in their home, right on the first page. To demonstrate the Past Simple. What’s with the Brits?
Anon

Dear Joy

Whats with the Brits is that they know how to spell and speak English properly!! Go figuuuure!
http://None Anon

Dear Joy

Whats with the Brits is that they know how to spell and speak English properly!! Go figuuuure!
http://www.ielanguages.com Jennie Wagner

@Anon: There is no “proper” form of a language, you linguistic snob. British English is no better than American English or any other dialect of English. Please do not leave ethnocentric comments here.
http://www.ielanguages.com Jennie

@Anon: There is no “proper” form of a language, you linguistic snob. British English is no better than American English or any other dialect of English. Please do not leave ethnocentric comments here.
http://www.correresmidestino.com/ Zhu

Er… that’s weird.

We have so really old books we sometimes use in class for our students (just the basic grammar and phonetic) and some of the dialogs are far from being politically correct. I find them very paternalistic…

Yet, nothing like that.

Zhus last blog post..How To Survive Your First Year In Canada (8/10)
http://www.correresmidestino.com Zhu

Er… that’s weird.

We have so really old books we sometimes use in class for our students (just the basic grammar and phonetic) and some of the dialogs are far from being politically correct. I find them very paternalistic…

Yet, nothing like that.

Zhus last blog post..How To Survive Your First Year In Canada (8/10)
http://pensees-en-franglais.blogspot.com/ joy

Anyway Anon, you missed your apostrophe. I guess the Brits don’t know a tongue in cheek comment *or* proper punctuation. Oooh, snap.

lol
http://pensees-en-franglais.blogspot.com joy

Anyway Anon, you missed your apostrophe. I guess the Brits don’t know a tongue in cheek comment *or* proper punctuation. Oooh, snap.

lol