It is possible to write a good essay on these topics from any one of several points of view.

• You can examine a topic in detail from the point of view of a particular syntactic theory. In your essay, you can discuss existing analyses, propose a new analysis, and/or point out difficulties for previous proposals in the light of new data.
• You can compare the treatment of the same topic in two or more different syntactic theories.
• You can discuss the topic with reference to data from two or more languages, pointing out similarities and differences between the languages, and noting any other similarities or differences that may be correlated.

It is best to start your research with the required and recommended texts and the references given there. I have included additional references below, which you may wish to consult when you have read the material in the textbooks. You can also do your own research, using the web or library facilities to search for alternative or additional material that is relevant to your essay.

• Phrase structure and X-bar theory.
  • Basic references:
    Carnie, Andrew. 2002. Syntax: A Generative Introduction, parts 1 and 2. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
    Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to Government-Binding Theory, chapter 2. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
    
  • Background reading and references:
    Noam Chomsky. Remarks on nominalization. In R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum, editors, Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Ginn, 1970.
    Ray S. Jackendoff. X' Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1977. [to be skimmed; mainly for historical interest]
    
  • Essay question:
    What are the principles of X-bar theory? What is its justification in syntactic theory?
• "Nonconfigurational" languages.
  • Basic references:
    Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax, part 1. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
    Kroeger, Paul. 2004. Analyzing Syntax, chapter 2. Cambridge University Press.
    
  • Background reading and references:
    Ken Hale. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 1(1):5-47, 1983.
    Jane Simpson. Warlpiri Morpho-Syntax: A Lexicalist Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1991.
  • Essay question:
    What is nonconfigurationality? Are any languages completely configurational or nonconfigurational?
• Arguments and adjuncts.
  • Basic references:
    Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to Government-Binding Theory, chapter 1. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
    Kroeger, Paul. 2005. Analyzing Grammar, chapter 4. Cambridge University Press.
    
  • Background reading and references:
    George Lakoff and John Robert Ross. Why you can't do so into the sink. In James D. McCawley, editor, Notes from the Linguistic Underground, volume 7 of Syntax and Semantics, pages 101-111. Academic Press, New York, 1976.
  • Essay question:
    Discuss some tests for distinguishing between arguments and adjuncts. How reliable are these tests?
• Grammatical functions; the grammatical function hierarchy.
  • References:
    Avery Andrews, III. The major functions of the noun phrase. In Tim Shopen, editor, Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1985.
    Edward L. Keenan and Bernard Comrie. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1):63-99, 1977.
  • Essay question:
    Define the grammatical function hierarchy, and discuss any evidence that motivates it.
• Syntactic ergativity, "Philippine-type" languages.
  • Basic references:
    Kroeger, Paul. 2004. Analyzing Syntax, chapter 11. Cambridge University Press.
    
  • Background reading and references:
    Robert M. W. Dixon. Ergativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1994.
    Paul Kroeger. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Dissertations in Linguistics. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 1993. Revised and corrected version of 1991 Stanford University dissertation.
    Christopher D. Manning. Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Dissertations in Linguistics. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 1996. Revised and corrected version of 1994 Stanford University dissertation.
    Paul Schachter. The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above? In Charles N. Li, editor, Subject and Topic. Academic Press, New York, 1976.
  • Essay question:
    What is syntactic ergativity? Are the Philippine languages (e.g. Tagalog) syntactically ergative?
• Argument structure.
  • Basic references:
    Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to Government-Binding Theory, chapter 1. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
    Kroeger, Paul. 2005. Analyzing Grammar, chapter 4. Cambridge University Press.
    Van Valin, Robert. 2001. Introduction to Syntax, chapter 2. Cambridge University Press.
    Saeed, John I. Semantics, chapter 6. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
    
  • Background reading and references:
    Alex Alsina. The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar: Evidence from Romance. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 1996.
    David R. Dowty. Thematic proto roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3):547-619, 1991.
    Ray S. Jackendoff. Semantic Structures. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.
    
  • Essay question:
    Can argument structure be adequately represented in terms of thematic role labels such as "agent", "theme", and "goal"?
• Complex predicates.
  • References:
    Alex Alsina. The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar: Evidence from Romance. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 1996.
    Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan, and Peter Sells, editors. Complex Predicates. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 1997.
    Miriam Butt. The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Dissertations in Linguistics. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 1996. Revised and corrected version of 1993 Stanford University dissertation.
    
  • Essay question:
    What issues do complex predicates raise for the representation of syntactic structure and the characterization of voice alternations?
• Grammatical function alternations.
  • References:
    Joan Bresnan and Jonni M. Kanerva. Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 20(1):1-50, 1989.
    Matthew S. Dryer. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language, 62(4):808-845, 1987.
    Beth Levin. English Verb Classes and Alternations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1993.
    M. Rappaport and B. Levin. What to do with theta-roles. In Wendy Wilkins, editor, Syntax and Semantics 21: Thematic Relations. Academic Press, New York, 1988.
  • Essay question:
    Discuss one or more of the following grammatical function alternations: passive, spray/load alternation, dative alternation, locative inversion.
• Argument-adding alternations: causative, applicative.
  • Basic references:
    Kroeger, Paul. 2004. Analyzing Syntax, chapters 3, 8. Cambridge University Press.
    
  • Background reading and references:
    Alex Alsina and Smita Joshi. Parameters in causative constructions. In Lise M. Dobrin, Lynn Nichols, and Rosa M. Rodriguez, editors, Papers from the Twenty-Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pages 31-46, University of Chicago, 1991. Chicago Linguistic Society.
    Alex Alsina and Sam A. Mchombo. The syntax of applicatives in Chichewa: Problems for a theta theoretic asymmetry. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 8:493-506, 1990.
    Joan Bresnan and Lioba Moshi. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(2):147-186, 1990.
    R. M. W. Dixon. A typology of causatives: Form, syntax, and meaning. In Dixon and Aikenvald, editors, Changing Valency: Case studies in transitivity. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
  • Essay question:
    Define and discuss either the causative or the applicative construction.
• Raising and control.
  • Basic references:
    Carnie, Andrew. 2002. Syntax: A Generative Introduction, chapter 10. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
    Mary Dalrymple. Lexical Functional Grammar, chapter 12. Volume 34 of Syntax and Semantics. Academic Press, New York, NY, 2001.
    Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to Government-Binding Theory, chapters 5 and 6. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
    Kroeger, Paul. 2004. Analyzing Syntax, chapter 5. Cambridge University Press.
    
  • Background reading and references:
    William D. Davies and Stanley Dubinsky. The grammar of raising and control. Blackwell, 2004.
    Richard K. Larson, Sabine Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri, and James Higginbotham (editors). Control and Grammar. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1992.
  • Essay question:
    What is the difference between the following pair of sentences, and how is it captured in linguistic theory?
    a) John tried to leave.
    b) John seemed to leave.
    Does this explanation extend to the following pair of sentences?
    c) John believed Bill to like haggis.
    d) John convinced Bill to try haggis.
    
• Long-distance dependencies. Syntactic islands.
  • Basic references:
    Carnie, Andrew. 2002. Syntax: A Generative Introduction, chapter 11. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
    Mary Dalrymple. Lexical Functional Grammar, chapter 14. Volume 34 of Syntax and Semantics. Academic Press, New York, NY, 2001.
    Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to Government-Binding Theory, chapter 7. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
    Kroeger, Paul. 2004. Analyzing Syntax, chapters 6, 7. Cambridge University Press.
    
  • Background reading and references:
    John Robert Ross. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD thesis, MIT, 1967. Published as Infinite syntax! Ablex, 1986.
    Ivan A. Sag and Janet D. Fodor. Extraction without traces. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 1994.
    
  • Essay question:
    What is meant by "island constraints" in the syntax of wh-questions in English and other languages?
• Anaphora.
  • Basic references:
    Carnie, Andrew. 2002. Syntax: A Generative Introduction, chapter 4. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
    Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to Government-Binding Theory, chapter 4. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
    Kroeger, Paul. 2004. Analyzing Syntax, chapter 4. Cambridge University Press.
    
  • Background reading and references:
    Mary Dalrymple. The Syntax of Anaphoric Binding. CSLI Lecture Notes, number 36. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 1993.
    Yan Huang. Anaphora: A Cross-Linguistic Study. Oxford University Press, 2000.
    Carl Pollard and Ivan A. Sag. Anaphors in English and the scope of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 23(2):261-303, 1992.
    
  • Essay question:
    Describe the constraints on reflexive pronouns ("himself") and nonreflexive pronouns ("him") in English. Do the same constraints hold of pronouns in other languages?
• Data in linguistics.
  • References:
    Featherston, Sam. Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics 33, 269-318. 2007.
    Lingua 115(11): Special issue on Data in Theoretical Linguistics. November 2005. See especially the papers by Borsley and Wasow & Arnold.
    
  • Essay question:
    What is the role of native speaker intuitions in grammatical theory?