ENG

An annotated bibliography can be one of your most valuable resources when writing a research paper for it documents not only your sources but also provides a brief synopsis of each source. The format for an annotated bibliography is quite simple. You cite the sources in the format you would use in a traditional bibliography/works cited page (you are welcome to use whatever widely recognized form of citation you are comfortable with: MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.). You are required to hand in an annotated bibliography on at least 10 sources for your paper (although the more sources you have, the more helpful this bibliography will be for you.) If you want to make this assignment easy for yourself, you should write bibliographic entries as you read texts for your paper. As in any other bibliography, the works should be listed alphabetically. However, before moving on to your next entry you will include a brief summary of the work underneath the entry. 

An example how this work should look like.

Vorlat, Emma. The Development of English Grammatical Theory: 1586-1737: With Special Reference to the Theory of Parts of Speech. Leuven UP, 1975.

Volta’s goal is to “describe the development of English grammatical theory over its first 150 years” (1). The book’s main structure presents the parts of speech individually, tracing the development of theories for each one. Her interest, however, is as much the path of influence as the grammar itself, as can be seen in the subdivision of chapters into the ideas presented by specific authors and texts. At the end of the study, Volta presents a list of the grammarians she perceives as being most influential and identifies individuals who continue the assertions of these earlier authors.

Zuber, Sharon, and Ann M. Reed. “The Politics of Grammar Handbooks: Generic He and Singular They.” College English, vol. 55, no. 5, 1993, pp. 515-30.

Zuber and Reed argue that grammar handbooks present a “seeming objectivity” which “mask[s] the specific social and historical contexts in which they were constructed” (518). They examine contemporary and historical responses to the issue of the “generic use of he,” concerns about sexist language, and the use of the “singular they” to reveal the political nature of grammatical prescriptions and proscriptions. Despite the frequent use of the “singular they” in contemporary speech, they assert, grammar handbooks dismiss its use as an alternative for non-gender specific language. Rejection of this possibility leaves few alternatives to replace the “generic he,” reestablishing it as the most acceptable grammatical solution to the problem of generic pronouns. Handbook authors invoke historical tradition and logical structures to dismiss the use of the “singular they.” In doing so, they ignore a historical tradition of using the “singular they” in speech and deny the evidence that, far from being the most natural solution to this dilemma, the “generic he” was mandated into formal use through an Act of Parliament in 1850. Zuber and Reed do not completely blame the authors of these handbooks for their insistence on arbitrary rules. Instead, they argue that the desires of consumers for handbooks determining “correct usage” leads to continuation of such a-historical proscriptions.

Works cited

Vorlat, Emma. The Development of English Grammatical Theory: 1586-1737: With Special Reference to the Theory of Parts of Speech. Leuven UP, 1975.