Your Annotated Bibliography must have 8 sources. Please go back to the prompt for the unit, located under "files" to refer to the guidelines for how many peer-reviewed/ scholarly, popular, hard-copy sources you must have as a minimum. Having 8 sources allows you to have a couple sources which don't end up working well for your argument. Make sure that you also have at least 2 sources which seem to take an alternative approach or indicate an opposing answer to your research question than the majority of the others. Analysis Process Assignment Consists of 4 Parts for each source and a 5th step to Synthesize and Analyze them all together. The Annotated Bibliography will consist of the following for 8 sources:  1. Cite the source using MLA format. (Someone in class asked if it is acceptable to use an online citation generator such as Easybib- it is ok to start from here in order to organize the pieces, but  always  double-check the accuracy with your McGraw Hill Handbook  or Purdue OWL because these generators frequently make mistakes.)  2. Below the citation include a two paragraph summary of the source  3. In sentence format, rate the source on a scale of 1( not helpful to answering your research question) to 5 (very helpful) and another 2-3 sentences answering these questions " Why is this a good source for/ how does it relate to my research question? Does this source help me to determine an arguable point within the research?" 4. Followed by 2-3 quotes, in MLA format, for each source including information which you would like to use in your paper. You may intend to direct-quote or to summarize or paraphrase the information in these quotes. The 5th step applies to all sources together.  5. After annotating all your sources, go back through and determine what the majority of the sources seem to indicate is the answer to your research question. At the bottom of the page include A. Your research question: Who is affected/ what is the problem/ why is it important? B. 1-2 paragraphs to synthesize what all the research says together (still only the facts but look for relationships based on agreement and disagreement) C. 1-2 paragraphs on what you think the research seems to indicate is the answer (make sure to note any research which seems to disagree with the majority which supports your interpretation.) D. Your idea of a possible arguable stance regarding the topic.This would be the answer to your research question, and the basis for your thesis. EXAMPLE : Bylund, E., and Athanasopoulos, P. (2014). "Linguistic relativity in SLA: Toward a new research program."  Language Learning,64 (4), 952-985. The authors’ purpose in the article is to support the investigation of linguistic relativity in second language acquisition. The authors identify and discuss three theoretical-methodological components necessary to their process of support. First, they highlight the importance of using nonverbal methods to study linguistic relativity effects in second la.

1. Your Annotated Bibliography must have 8 sources. Please go
back to the prompt for the unit, located under "files" to refer to
the guidelines for how many peer-reviewed/ scholarly, popular,
hard-copy sources you must have as a minimum. Having 8
sources allows you to have a couple sources which don't end up
working well for your argument. Make sure that you also have
at least 2 sources which seem to take an alternative approach or
indicate an opposing answer to your research question than the
majority of the others.
Analysis Process Assignment Consists of 4 Parts for each
source and a 5th step to Synthesize and Analyze them all
together.
The Annotated Bibliography will consist of the following for 8
sources:
1. Cite the source using MLA format. (Someone in class asked
if it is acceptable to use an online citation generator such as
Easybib- it is ok to start from here in order to organize the
pieces, but
always
double-check the accuracy with your McGraw Hill Handbook
or Purdue OWL because these generators frequently make
mistakes.)
2. Below the citation include a two paragraph summary of the
source
3. In sentence format, rate the source on a scale of 1( not
helpful to answering your research question) to 5 (very helpful)
and another 2-3 sentences answering these questions " Why is
this a good source for/ how does it relate to my research
question? Does this source help me to determine an arguable
point within the research?"
4. Followed by 2-3 quotes, in MLA format, for each source
including information which you would like to use in your
paper. You may intend to direct-quote or to summarize or
paraphrase the information in these quotes.
The 5th step applies to all sources together.

2. 5. After annotating all your sources, go back through and
determine what the majority of the sources seem to indicate is
the answer to your research question. At the bottom of the page
include
A. Your research question: Who is affected/ what is the
problem/ why is it important?
B. 1-2 paragraphs to synthesize what all the research says
together (still only the facts but look for relationships based
on agreement and disagreement)
C. 1-2 paragraphs on what you think the research seems to
indicate is the answer (make sure to note any research which
seems to disagree with the majority which supports your
interpretation.)
D. Your idea of a possible arguable stance regarding the
topic.This would be the answer to your research question, and
the basis for your thesis.
EXAMPLE
:
Bylund, E., and Athanasopoulos, P. (2014). "Linguistic
relativity in SLA: Toward a new research program."
Language Learning,64
(4), 952-985.
The authors’ purpose in the article is to support the
investigation of linguistic relativity in second language
acquisition. The authors identify and discuss three theoretical-
methodological components necessary to their process of
support. First, they highlight the importance of using nonverbal
methods to study linguistic relativity effects in second language
(L2) speakers. Second, they identify and delineate the likely
cognitive mechanisms underpinning cognitive restructuring in
L2 speakers by introducing the theoretical framework of
associative learning. Third, they offer an in-depth discussion of
the factors (e.g., L2 proficiency and L2 use) that characterize
those trajectories, anchoring them to the framework of

3. associative learning, and reinterpreting their relative strength in
predicting L2 speaker cognition.
I rate this article a 4 due to the clear and systematic definition
of terms. It also identified research terms such as "cognitive
restructuring" and "associative learning."
[include 2-3 quotes from source]
Citron, J. L. "Can cross-cultural understanding aid second
language acquisition? toward a theory of ethno-lingual
relativity."
Hispania, 78
(1), (1995): 105-113.
In this article James Citron posits whether a theory of ethno-
lingual relativity may be formulated in relation to second
language acquisition. Citron begins by discussing past studies
which have shown that multilingualism fosters a greater
openness to cross cultural learning approaches. However, Citron
would like to be able to prove the converse assertion, that an
openness to cross cultural understanding can actually foster
second language acquisition. Citron identifies two components
of ethno-lingual relativity. “The first is the ability to recognize
that languages are not direct translations of each other, and ,
furthermore, that the way one’s first language expresses a
thought is arbitrary” (Citron). “The second… is the ability to
recognize how much of one’s own language is culture-bound”
(Citron).
Citron relates studies in individual learner aptitude and social
psychology to his theory. He focuses specifically on Brown’s
treatment of Acculturation Theory, which Citron claims shows
evidence in support of a Theory of Ethno-Lingual Relativity.
Citron also looks at a case study of SLA in a study-abroad
setting which he uses to support his theory.
I would rate this article a 5, mostly due to its clear definition of
terms but also due to the cross-disciplinary approach to support.
It seems to be a foundational work on the topic, published in

4. 1995. It helped me to understand the two main components of
ethno-lingual relativity: student understanding of 1 the
arbitrariness of language and 2 the culturally-bound nature of
language.
Quotes:
Citron identifies two components of ethno-lingual relativity.
“The first is the ability to recognize that languages are not
direct translations of each other, and , furthermore, that the way
one’s first language expresses a thought is arbitrary” (Citron).
“The second… is the ability to recognize how much of one’s
own language is culture-bound” (Citron).
Kramsch, C. (2002). Language and culture: A social semiotic
perspective.
ADFL Bulletin, 33
(2), 8-15.
This article addresses the resources from language, literature,
and culture that students apply when learning a second language
are defined as a social semiotic in the sense of M. A. K.
Halliday (1978) and are examined in an appreciation of the
potential contribution of applied linguistics to foreign language
departments. Structuralist, social, and social-semiotic models of
the study of foreign languages, literatures, and cultures are
contrasted to show that the social semiotic model, which
promises to remedy the disappointing results of the
communicative orientation in language instruction, draws on
three post-structuralist principles in addition to the principle of
linguistic relativity: intertextuality, language learning as social
and dialogic meaning construction, and the historical
situatedness and local context of language users as an essential
element of language. Interlanguage is characterized in this
framework as a social semiotic construct; the traditional focus
of the foreign language curriculum is shifted by applied
linguistics to include the central role of discourse in meaning
making, interest in bilingual writers, and contacts with the

5. social sciences.
I rate this article a 4 for its clear interpretations of the
theoretical framework needed for approaching linguistic
relativity in SLA. This article also helped me by bringing
forward the research terms "social-semiotic," "interlanguage,"
and "meaning making."
Research Question:
How does learner awareness of linguistic relativity impact the
second language acquisition process?
(Who/what/why?)
What does the research seem to indicate?
The research seems to indicate that learner awareness of
linguistic relativity has a positive impact on the language
acquisition process. Much of the study on this topic has focused
on language immersion programs, in which students are exposed
to the cultural-context of the target language by living in the
place related to that culture for a somewhat extended period of
time. Study has also focused on the psychological, social, and
academic contexts of these learning experiences in order to
determine the factors which make up linguistic relativity and
determine its impact on the language learning
process. However, (problem) a broad study which addresses the
relationship between study abroad or immersion programs and
language acquisition has not yet been enacted.
Possible arguable stance/ thesis with solution:
Learner awareness of linguistic relativity has a positive impact
on the second language acquisition process especially in the
context of study abroad and language immersion programs. In
order to understand the impact of study abroad and language
immersion programs on language acquisition, a broad study
which includes students from many backgrounds should be
performed.