homework must be done in 12 hours

1- In the article he talks about his project- in the book The Way to Rainy Mountain, he actually executes it. Which one are you trying to refer to here- or are you trying to talk about both and you just need to clarify?

Remember- the article is what he says, and the book is what he does. 

2- Macro conversation: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, Momaday, and you. To enter into a conversation, you must have the whole conversation laid out- and you must make an arguable statement. You cannot stop at analysis, but instead must make an argument based upon what you found in your analysis and the explain why we should agree with you.

3-This is still talking about the text and what you see in it- but it's not making an argument pursuant to what you see. Remember that you need to take it to the next level and explain why all this is important to know- and to whom.

4- Remember how we talked about the fact that the strong version of this hypothesis is bullshit race science? If you want to argue the weak version, that's okay. There's some support for that. But either way you need to consider how that fits in with what you want to say about Momaday's work. What does seeing the language and culture and perspective of the Kiowa as represented in Momaday's writing do for us? Why is that important

5- There is a point in your essay where you do the 'biographical research' thing- this is problematic for two reasons:

1) You don't cite it.

2) It's not part of the conversation we're having. Remember that you can limit which authors you want to interact with, but the boundaries of the conversation are firmly set