Who Wrote the Report? A One-Line Brief Before Deadline
At a Tehran news agency, the candidate is the duty translation editor. A one-line brief must be filed in 15 minutes for a legal-news bulletin. The English source reads: 'The manager told the intern that the report she had written had been rejected.' The translator's Persian draft reads: «مدیر به کارآموز گفت که گزارشی که نوشته بود رد شد.» The desk chief reads it and says, 'This says the manager wrote it - or maybe the intern. I can't publish a sentence that assigns authorship by guess.' The candidate knows from the reporter's notes that the intern wrote the report and the manager rejected it; the notes cannot be quoted. The bulletin's style guide forbids footnotes, requires one sentence for the item, and caps headlines at 60 characters. A second editor suggests adding «خودِ» before the verb, but the candidate is not sure that solves it. The legal reviewer will reject any sentence that could be read as blaming the intern for the rejection.
1. Explain the ambiguity precisely: which «که» does what, and why the subject of «نوشته بود» is unclear.
Read the worked answer
The first «که» after «گفت» is a complementizer: it introduces the content of what the manager said. The second «که» after «گزارشی» is a relative pronoun: it introduces a clause modifying «گزارش». So the skeleton is: manager told intern [that report-i [that ___ had written] was rejected].
The relative clause has no overt subject. Persian is pro-drop, and the missing subject is recovered from context - often the matrix subject or the nearest salient noun. Here both «مدیر» and «کارآموز» are available, so the sentence can mean 'the report the manager had written' or 'the report the intern had written'. English 'she' is also ambiguous, but the reporter's notes disambiguate it; the Persian draft does not.
Adding «خودِ» alone does not fully solve the problem, because «خود» needs an antecedent to bind to, and the subject it would bind to is still implicit. The editor needs an explicit noun or an explicit pronoun, not just emphasis.
2. Give two revisions that produce the two readings, and say which one the desk should publish.
Read the worked answer
Reading A - the intern wrote it: «مدیر به کارآموز گفت گزارشی را که خودِ کارآموز نوشته بود، رد کرده‌اند.» Here «خودِ کارآموز» is explicit, and «رد کرده‌اند» supplies a plural agent instead of letting the report appear to reject itself.
Reading B - the manager wrote it: «مدیر به کارآموز گفت گزارشی را که خودش نوشته بود، رد کرده‌اند.» Here «خودش» refers to the manager.
The desk should publish reading A, because the reporter's notes say the intern wrote the report. But note the cost: «رد کرده‌اند» hides the manager as the rejecter, which may itself be a legal risk if the bulletin is expected to attribute the rejection.
A cleaner alternative is: «کارآموز گزارشی نوشته بود که مدیر آن را رد کرد.» It is still one sentence, assigns both actions explicitly, and removes the ambiguity without relying on «خود». If legal review allows naming the manager, this is the best version.
3. Write a headline under 60 characters and explain what it sacrifices.
Read the worked answer
«گزارش کارآموز رد شد» - roughly 20 characters, well under the 60-character cap.
What it sacrifices: the headline drops the manager and the act of rejection by an agent. It also does not say who wrote the report beyond the attributive «کارآموز», which is enough for a headline. The sacrifice is the causal chain, not accuracy: the headline does not misassign authorship, and it does not blame the intern for the rejection.
If legal review permits naming the manager, «مدیر گزارش کارآموز را رد کرد» is also under 60 characters and is clearer. The choice between the two is a policy decision, not a grammar decision: the shorter headline protects the outlet, the longer one serves the reader. The editor should not solve the ambiguity by inventing a detail that the reporter's notes do not support.