When I taught in public schools, I often ran into ambiguous IDPs and
rejected them as poorly written. I hope that you are in a Teacher's
union so you won't have to pay your own lawyer. I would read the
intent of the sentence as referring solely to the final phrase. As
a federal employee, I once had to reject a federal contract the
wording of which had been approved by a lawyer who did not understand
the function of commas. I was ordered to approve it but refused. I
appealed to the VAMC director who understood my point and overruled
the lawyer.
Scott Catledge
Professor Emeritus
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 4 Apr 2009 to 5 Apr 2009 (#2009-76)
There are 4 messages totalling 873 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. syntax in a legal document (4)
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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 10:55:26 -0400
From: "O'Sullivan, Brian P" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: syntax in a legal document
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?=20
Brian=20
-----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
=20
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/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:48:59 -0400
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: syntax in a legal document
Just going on the recent Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment and=
its application to DC gun laws, I don't think there's a simple standard. =
It gets mixed up with case law, legal theory, politics, and much more. Sin=
ce this is not quite as inflammatory an issue as gun control, there may als=
o be less of a flap over it. =20
Several linguists, reported on Dennis Baron's Web of Language at http://ill=
inois.edu/blog/view?blogId=3D25&topicId=3D1637&count=3D1&ACTION=3DVIEW_TOPI=
C_DIALOGS&skinId=3D286, did a friend of the court brief with an interesting=
grammatical analysis of the Second Amendment that's worth reading. It str=
ives for historically accurate grammatical analysis.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]
OHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of O'Sullivan, Brian P
Sent: 2009-04-05 10:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: syntax in a legal document
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 effectivel=
y by quoting Herb!) that the "letter" of the sentence is technically ambigu=
ous 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 reas=
onable person, or to a reasonable teacher with the same institutional knowl=
edge that Susan has, or that the intent was actually unclear to Susan herse=
lf?=20
Brian=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of STAHLKE, HE=
RBERT F
Sent: Sat 4/4/2009 8:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: syntax in a legal document
=20
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]
U] 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/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:54:42 -0500
From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: syntax in a legal document
--0015175cb954fd71830466d2798c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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/
--0015175cb954fd71830466d2798c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div>Forensic linguistics is a relatively new field, and in many cases ther=
e is simply little to no precedent to predict legal decisions that hinge on=
the testimony of linguists. Most current scholarly work in forensic lingui=
stics focuses on legal jargon, courtroom discourse, and speaker/writer iden=
tification. The legal standard for ambiguity in a case like this is likely =
very gray.</div>
<div>=A0</div>
<div>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 g=
uidelines. For example, the school (and I would assume the teacher as an ex=
tension) is required in good faith to ensure that the goals set forth in th=
e 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. </div>
<div>=A0</div>
<div>I know that in some cases it is (sadly) unlikely, but if the parents w=
ere willing to be actively involved, it would make a world of difference. T=
he parents of a student with an IEP always have the right to challenge the =
IEP's language and interpretation.</div>
<div>=A0</div>
<div>Best wishes, Susan!</div>
<div>=A0</div>
<div>John Alexander<br><br></div>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:55 AM, O'Sullivan, =
Brian P <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">bposu=
[log in to unmask]</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Does anyone know the legal stand=
ard for asserting a sentence's ambiguity in a case like this? =A0Would =
one just need to show (as one could do effectively by quoting Herb!) that t=
he "letter" of the sentence is technically ambiguous in the opini=
on 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 perso=
n, or to a reasonable teacher with the same institutional knowledge that Su=
san has, or that the intent was actually unclear to Susan herself?<br>
<br>Brian<br><br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Assembly for t=
he Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of STAHLKE, HERBERT F<br>Sent: Sat=
4/4/2009 8:04 PM<br>To: <a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">ATEG@L=
ISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU</a><br>
Subject: Re: syntax in a legal document<br><br>Please do! =A0And good luck =
with it.<br><br>Herb<br><br>Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.<br>Emeritus Profes=
sor of English<br>Ball State University<br>Muncie, IN =A047306<br><a href=
=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a><br>
________________________________________<br>From: Assembly for the Teaching=
of English Grammar [<a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">ATEG@LISTS=
ERV.MUOHIO.EDU</a>] On Behalf Of Susan van Druten [<a href=3D"mailto:bosvd@=
CPINTERNET.COM">[log in to unmask]</a>]<br>
Sent: April 4, 2009 7:49 PM<br>To: <a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]
DU">[log in to unmask]</a><br>Subject: Re: syntax in a legal document=
<br><br>Thanks, Herb, this is just enough wiggle-room. =A0I assume I may qu=
ote<br>
you and use your impressive credentials.<br><br>Susan<br><br><br>On Apr 4, =
2009, at 6:36 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:<br><br>> I would say that as=
written it is ambiguous. =A0The question is the<br>> scope of the modif=
ier, and the sentence could be interpreted so as<br>
> to put each verb phrase into the scope of the modifier. =A0It isn'=
t<br>> customary to set off a postposed prepositional phrase modifier wi=
th<br>> a comma, and so it can be interpreted as specific to that predic=
ate<br>
> or generally as a modifier of all three predicates. =A0It can clearly<=
br>> be read aloud either way, and the slight pause if it is interpreted=
<br>> as a sentence modifier would not have to be marked by a comma.<br>
><br>> Herb<br>><br>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.<br>> Emer=
itus Professor of English<br>> Ball State University<br>> Muncie, IN =
=A047306<br>> <a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a><b=
r>
> ________________________________________<br>> From: Assembly for th=
e Teaching of English Grammar<br>> [<a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]
IO.EDU">[log in to unmask]</a>] On Behalf Of Susan van Druten<br>>=
[<a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>]<br>
> Sent: April 4, 2009 7:02 PM<br>> To: <a href=3D"mailto:ATEG@LISTSER=
V.MUOHIO.EDU">[log in to unmask]</a><br>> Subject: Re: syntax in a=
legal document<br>><br>> Thanks, Herb. =A0I probably should clarify.=
=A0IEP's are law that are<br>
> written by the special ed teacher. =A0I, the classroom teacher, am<br>=
> required to follow the law even though I find it to be immoral as<br>&=
gt; it condones cheating and requires me to give my good name to a<br>> =
grade that I know was acquired by cheating. =A0I want you to find the<br>
> original IEP to be ambiguous.<br>><br>> So here's my questio=
n: as written is the originally-worded<br>> statement from the IEP ambig=
uous enough for a smart lawyer on my<br>> behalf to argue that I, the cl=
assroom teacher, can use my<br>
> discretion about not allowing a test to be given in the special ed<br>=
> resource room? =A0Or am I required by law to let my test be<br>> ad=
ministered by the special ed teacher (who will let my student<br>> cheat=
)?<br>
><br>> My district may be forced to fire me for breaking the law beca=
use I<br>> did not allow the test to be taken in the resource room last =
Friday<br>> when directly told to do so by my principal. =A0I would like=
to use<br>
> the vagueness of the IEP (written by the special ed teacher) as my<br>=
> defense.<br>><br>> I'd like to hear the grammar experts'=
responses.<br>><br>> Don't worry, I have many other defenses. =
=A0I just want your take on<br>
> the syntax issue.<br>><br>> Susan<br>><br>> On Apr 4, 2009=
, at 4:11 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:<br>><br>> To make it unambigu=
ous, I think you'd want to put "per teacher<br>> discretion&quo=
t; at the beginning of the sentence. =A0Then it would<br>
> clearly modify all three verb phrases. =A0It's too easy to interpr=
et<br>> the phrase as restricted to the last conjunct if it's at the=
end.<br>><br>> Herb<br>><br>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.<br>
> Emeritus Professor of English<br>> Ball State University<br>> Mu=
ncie, IN =A047306<br>> <a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
edu</a><mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>&=
gt;<br>
> ________________________________________<br>> From: Assembly for th=
e Teaching of English Grammar<br>> [<a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]
IO.EDU">[log in to unmask]</a><mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:ATEG@LISTS=
ERV.MUOHIO.EDU">[log in to unmask]</a>>] On<br>
> Behalf Of Susan van Druten<br>> [<a href=3D"mailto:bosvd@CPINTERNET=
.COM">[log in to unmask]</a><mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:bosvd@CPINTERNET=
.COM">[log in to unmask]</a>>]<br>> Sent: April 4, 2009 3:42 PM<br>
> To: <a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
DU</a><mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
MUOHIO.EDU</a>><br>> Subject: syntax in a legal document<br>><br>&=
gt; The IEP reads as follows: "He may take tests in the resource room,=
<br>
> have extended time to complete them, and they may be open book per<br>=
> teacher discreation [sic]." =A0Is there any way the per teacher<b=
r>> discretion line could be seen as modifying the entire sentence?<br>
><br>> I am the teacher who must give my tests to the special ed teac=
her<br>> who lets the students cheat on tests. =A0I'm looking for a =
loophole,<br>> so the IEP will have to be rewritten.<br>><br>> Tha=
nks for any help!<br>
> Susan<br>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the li=
st's web<br>> interface at: <a href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/ar=
chives/ateg.html" target=3D"_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ate=
g.html</a> and<br>
> select "Join or leave the list"<br>><br>> Visit ATEG&#=
39;s web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://ateg=
.org/</a><br>><br>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit=
the list's web<br>
> interface at:<br>> =A0 =A0 =A0<a href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu=
/archives/ateg.html" target=3D"_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/=
ateg.html</a><br>> and select "Join or leave the list"<br>>=
<br>> Visit ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/" target=
=3D"_blank">http://ateg.org/</a><br>
><br>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list'=
;s web<br>> interface at: <a href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives=
/ateg.html" target=3D"_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html=
</a> and<br>
> select "Join or leave the list"<br>><br>> Visit ATEG&#=
39;s web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://ateg=
.org/</a><br>><br>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit=
the list's web<br>
> interface at:<br>> =A0 =A0 =A0<a href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu=
/archives/ateg.html" target=3D"_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/=
ateg.html</a><br>> and select "Join or leave the list"<br>>=
<br>> Visit ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/" target=
=3D"_blank">http://ateg.org/</a><br>
<br>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web in=
terface at:<br>=A0 =A0 <a href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.=
html" target=3D"_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a><b=
r>and select "Join or leave the list"<br>
<br>Visit ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/" target=3D"_bl=
ank">http://ateg.org/</a><br><br>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, pleas=
e visit the list's web interface at:<br>=A0 =A0 <a href=3D"http://lists=
erv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html" target=3D"_blank">http://listserv.muohio=
.edu/archives/ateg.html</a><br>
and select "Join or leave the list"<br><br>Visit ATEG's web s=
ite at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://ateg.org/</a><=
br><br><br>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's=
web interface at:<br>
=A0 =A0 <a href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html" target=3D=
"_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a><br>and select &q=
uot;Join or leave the list"<br><br>Visit ATEG's web site at <a hre=
f=3D"http://ateg.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://ateg.org/</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0015175cb954fd71830466d2798c--
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 16:19:54 -0400
From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: syntax in a legal document
--00163642702b3eea630466d48193
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The only time I ever earned consultant money as a linguist came a few years
ago when a local attorney phoned me at the university. He had written a
contract for his client that another party was interpreting in a way harmful
to his client's interests. That party's lawyer presented an extended parsing
of one very lengthy sentence complete with a Reed-Kellogg diagram of it.
This shook up the lawyer, and he asked me to analyze it. I told him a case
could be made for a more favorable interpretation of the sentence, and I
wrote it up, complete with a different diagram showing that interpretation.
It worked, and his client won the case. The fact is that he wrote a badly
ambiguous sentence, but apparently it came down to which parsing job the
judge found more impressive.
Not being in the consultant business, I had no idea what to charge the
lawyer when he asked, but I knew lawyers bill by the hour, so I pulled out
the figure of $200 per hour for my time. He accepted this, so we were both
happy.
Dick Veit
Department of English
UNCW
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/
--00163642702b3eea630466d48193
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The only time I ever earned consultant money as a linguist came a few years=
ago when a local attorney phoned me at the university. He had written a co=
ntract for his client that another party was interpreting in a way harmful =
to his client's interests. That party's lawyer presented an extende=
d parsing of one very lengthy sentence complete with a Reed-Kellogg diagram=
of it. This shook up the lawyer, and he asked me to analyze it. I told him=
a case could be made for a more favorable interpretation of the sentence, =
and I wrote it up, complete with a different diagram showing that interpret=
ation. It worked, and his client won the case. The fact is that he wrote a =
badly ambiguous sentence, but apparently it came down to which parsing job =
the judge found more impressive.<br>
<br>Not being in the consultant business, I had no idea what to charge the =
lawyer when he asked, but I knew lawyers bill by the hour, so I pulled out =
the figure of $200 per hour for my time. He accepted this, so we were both =
happy.<br>
<br>Dick Veit<br>Department of English<br>UNCW<br>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--00163642702b3eea630466d48193--
------------------------------
End of ATEG Digest - 4 Apr 2009 to 5 Apr 2009 (#2009-76)
********************************************************
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/
|
