Forensic linguistics is a relatively new field, and in many cases there is
simply little to no precedent to predict legal decisions that hinge on the
testimony of linguists. Most current scholarly work in forensic linguistics
focuses on legal jargon, courtroom discourse, and speaker/writer
identification. The legal standard for ambiguity in a case like this is
likely very gray.

One approach Susan might try is to look for ways in which the written IEP
does not comply with the laws set forth in IDEA and other federal IEP
guidelines. For example, the school (and I would assume the teacher as an
extension) is required in good faith to ensure that the goals set forth in
the IEP can be reasonably measured. Susan's decision might be viewed as a
reaction in good faith to an IEP that has already been compromised.

I know that in some cases it is (sadly) unlikely, but if the parents were
willing to be actively involved, it would make a world of difference. The
parents of a student with an IEP always have the right to challenge the
IEP's language and interpretation.

Best wishes, Susan!

John Alexander

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:55 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Does anyone know the legal standard for asserting a sentence's ambiguity in
> a case like this?  Would one just need to show (as one could do effectively
> by quoting Herb!) that the "letter" of the sentence is technically ambiguous
> in the opinion of an expert grammarian? Or would Susan's lawyer have to
> argue that the spirit or intent of the sentence would be unclear to a
> reasonable person, or to a reasonable teacher with the same institutional
> knowledge that Susan has, or that the intent was actually unclear to Susan
> herself?
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of STAHLKE,
> HERBERT F
> Sent: Sat 4/4/2009 8:04 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: syntax in a legal document
>
> Please do!  And good luck with it.
>
> Herb
>
> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
> Emeritus Professor of English
> Ball State University
> Muncie, IN  47306
> [log in to unmask]
> ________________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Susan van Druten [
> [log in to unmask]]
> Sent: April 4, 2009 7:49 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: syntax in a legal document
>
> Thanks, Herb, this is just enough wiggle-room.  I assume I may quote
> you and use your impressive credentials.
>
> Susan
>
>
> On Apr 4, 2009, at 6:36 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>
> > I would say that as written it is ambiguous.  The question is the
> > scope of the modifier, and the sentence could be interpreted so as
> > to put each verb phrase into the scope of the modifier.  It isn't
> > customary to set off a postposed prepositional phrase modifier with
> > a comma, and so it can be interpreted as specific to that predicate
> > or generally as a modifier of all three predicates.  It can clearly
> > be read aloud either way, and the slight pause if it is interpreted
> > as a sentence modifier would not have to be marked by a comma.
> >
> > Herb
> >
> > Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
> > Emeritus Professor of English
> > Ball State University
> > Muncie, IN  47306
> > [log in to unmask]
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> > [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Susan van Druten
> > [[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: April 4, 2009 7:02 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: syntax in a legal document
> >
> > Thanks, Herb.  I probably should clarify.  IEP's are law that are
> > written by the special ed teacher.  I, the classroom teacher, am
> > required to follow the law even though I find it to be immoral as
> > it condones cheating and requires me to give my good name to a
> > grade that I know was acquired by cheating.  I want you to find the
> > original IEP to be ambiguous.
> >
> > So here's my question: as written is the originally-worded
> > statement from the IEP ambiguous enough for a smart lawyer on my
> > behalf to argue that I, the classroom teacher, can use my
> > discretion about not allowing a test to be given in the special ed
> > resource room?  Or am I required by law to let my test be
> > administered by the special ed teacher (who will let my student
> > cheat)?
> >
> > My district may be forced to fire me for breaking the law because I
> > did not allow the test to be taken in the resource room last Friday
> > when directly told to do so by my principal.  I would like to use
> > the vagueness of the IEP (written by the special ed teacher) as my
> > defense.
> >
> > I'd like to hear the grammar experts' responses.
> >
> > Don't worry, I have many other defenses.  I just want your take on
> > the syntax issue.
> >
> > Susan
> >
> > On Apr 4, 2009, at 4:11 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
> >
> > To make it unambiguous, I think you'd want to put "per teacher
> > discretion" at the beginning of the sentence.  Then it would
> > clearly modify all three verb phrases.  It's too easy to interpret
> > the phrase as restricted to the last conjunct if it's at the end.
> >
> > Herb
> >
> > Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
> > Emeritus Professor of English
> > Ball State University
> > Muncie, IN  47306
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> > [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On
> > Behalf Of Susan van Druten
> > [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
> > Sent: April 4, 2009 3:42 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: syntax in a legal document
> >
> > The IEP reads as follows: "He may take tests in the resource room,
> > have extended time to complete them, and they may be open book per
> > teacher discreation [sic]."  Is there any way the per teacher
> > discretion line could be seen as modifying the entire sentence?
> >
> > I am the teacher who must give my tests to the special ed teacher
> > who lets the students cheat on tests.  I'm looking for a loophole,
> > so the IEP will have to be rewritten.
> >
> > Thanks for any help!
> > Susan
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and
> > select "Join or leave the list"
> >
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> >
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> > interface at:
> >      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> > and select "Join or leave the list"
> >
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> >
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and
> > select "Join or leave the list"
> >
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> >
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> > interface at:
> >      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> > and select "Join or leave the list"
> >
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/