Personification
explanation- life like features are given to an object that is not alive. (leaping of water)
<em>Answer:</em> Destiny chose to take art instead of music because she enjoyed art more.
I love running outside in the rain. This is an example of a first-person point of view (using pronoun “I”). The narrator is talking about what he himself likes.
Destiny chose to take art instead of music because she enjoyed art more. This is an example of third-person <em>objective</em> point of view. The third-person is demonstrated by the use of “he/she,” while the objectivity is shown because the narrator does not know any more information than what could be guessed by everyone in the story.
Jake hastily made the decision to leave his umbrella by the door instead of taking it with him. This would prove a poor choice. This is an example of a third-person <em>subjective</em> point of view. The character is a narrator who is not only describing the events, but has information that no character would know. The narrator could know about the character’s feelings, future plans, concerns, even when the character hasn’t mentioned them out loud. In this case, the narrator has information about the future consequences of not taking the umbrella.
You should always listen to your mother's advice. This is a second-person point of view (using pronoun “you”).
Answer:
Im a vegetarian and a picky eater. What i like to eat is simple homemade dishes. Such as pasta, with salad, or some soup. Im arabian so i really like foods such as falafel, with ka'k and hummus etc..
As a snack i eat an oat bar or watermelon. And i don't eat dinner .
Answer:
'Be going to' has TWO meanings, both of which express future actions.
'Be going to' can be used to make predictions.
Ex. According to the weather report, it <u>is going to</u> be cloudy tomorrow.
'Be going to' is also used to express a prior plan (i.e., a plan made before the moment of speaking.)
Ex. I <u>am going to</u> attend my brother's graduation on Saturday.
Explanation:
Answer:
Interpreters who work in community settings with participants from disparate cultural backgrounds may confront difficulties conveying the source message into the target message accurately due to cross-cultural differences. Such cross-cultural differences can range from pragmalinguistic differences at the discourse level of speech to sociopragmatic differences, which go beyond the utterances. When confronted with such instances, interpreters are almost always unsure of how to react and of what is expected of them. The few studies that have looked at cross-cultural differences in community interpreting clearly show that there is no consistency in the way interpreters approach potential cross-cultural misunderstandings. This paper will present the results of a section of a questionnaire of a larger study, which asked practising legal interpreters whether they alert judicial officers and tribunal members of potential cross-cultural differences, and which also asked judicial officers and tribunal members about their expectations of interpreters in such situations. The results point to a need for greater guidance and clearer protocols for interpreters working in the legal system.
