Katena

In linguistics , catena ( Eng. Catena “string, string”; from Lat. Catena “chain”) is a syntactic and morphological unit closely related to dependency grammars . It is a more flexible and inclusive concept than a component , and therefore, probably, can better serve as a fundamental unit of syntactic and morphosyntactic analysis.

The concept of catena was introduced into linguistics by William O'Grady in 1998 ^[1] , and later noticed by some other linguists ^[2] and applied to the syntax of idiosyncratic values of various kinds, the syntax of ellipsis mechanisms (grapping, stripping, VP ellipsis, pseudo-grapping, slousing, fragmentation, comparative ellipsis), to the syntax of predicate - actant structures and the syntax of discontinuous structures (topicalization, wh-movement, scrambling , extraposition , etc.).

Content

Definition

Katena is introduced as follows:

Katena

Any element ( word or morph ) or any combination of elements that is inextricable in the vertical dimension (along the Y axis).

In terms of graph theory , any syntax tree or subgraph of a tree is katena. In this regard, each component is catena, but there are many catenas that are not components. Thus, the component is a subspecies of the catena.

Any single element (word or morph) or a combination of elements connected in the vertical dimension is catena. The proposal structure is considered as existing in two dimensions. Combinations formed along the horizontal dimension (in the order of precedence) are called rows , while combinations formed along the vertical dimension (in the order of domination) are called catenas. In terms of a Cartesian coordinate system , rows exist along the X axis, and catenas exist along the Y axis.

Four Units

Morphological Catena Example

Understanding catena is based on the difference between catena and other similar units. There are four units (including catena) related in this regard: string , catena , component and component . The definition of catena is given here again for comparison with the definitions of three other units:

Line

Any element (word or morph) or any combination of elements that is inextricable in the horizontal dimension (along the X axis).

Katena

Any element (word or morph) or any combination of elements that is inextricable in the vertical dimension (along the Y axis).

Component

Any element (word or morph) or any combination of elements that is both a string and a katen.

Component

Any component that is complete .

A component is complete if it includes all the elements dominated by its root vertex. The string and the katena obviously complement each other, and the definition of the component is essentially the same as that given in most syntactic theories, where the component is understood as consisting of any vertex with all the vertices over which this vertex dominates .

These definitions will now be illustrated using the following dependency tree. Latin capital letters are used to abbreviate words:

Listed below are all the various lines, catenas, components, and components of this tree:

21 different lines

A, B, C, D, E, F, AB, BC, CD, DE, EF, ABC, BCD, CDE, DEF, ABCD, BCDE, CDEF, ABCDE, BCDEF, ABCDEF

24 different catenas

A, B, C, D, E, F, AB, BC, CF, DF, EF, ABC, BCF, CDF, CEF, DEF, ABCF, BCDF, BCEF, CDEF, ABCDF, ABCEF, BCDEF, ABCDEF

14 different components

A, B, C, D, E, F, AB, BC, EF, ABC, DEF, CDEF, BCDEF, ABCDEF

6 different components

A, D, E, AB, DEF, ABCDEF

It is worth noting that the tree contains 39 different combinations of words that are not catenas: for example, AC, BD, CE, BCE, ADF, ABEF, ABDEF, etc. It is also noteworthy that there are only six components, but 24 catenas . Thus, there are four times as many catenas in this tree as there are constituents. The scope and flexibility of catenas as units of analysis becomes apparent.

The following Venn diagram gives an idea of how the four units relate to each other.

Notes

↑ O'Grady (1998) introduced the concept of catena as the basis for his analysis of the idiom syntax. However, O'Grady did not call the corresponding syntactic unit a chain, but a chain . The term katena was introduced later by Osborne et al. (Osborne et al., 2013) to avoid confusion with the previously existing notion of the “chain” of minimalist theory .
↑ The concept of catena has been extended beyond the analysis of O'Grady's idioms. See Osborne (2005), Osborne et al. (2011), Osborne (2012), Osborne and Groß (2012a), Osborne and Groß (2012b), and Osborne et al. (2012).

Literature

O'Grady, W. 1998. The syntax of idioms. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16. 79-312.
Osborne, T. 2005. Beyond the constituent: A DG analysis of chains. Folia Linguistica 39, 3-4. 251-297.
Osborne, T., M. Putnam, and T. Groß. 2011. Bare phrase structure, label-less trees, and specifier-less syntax: Is Minimalism becoming a dependency grammar? The Linguistic Review 28: 315-364.
Osborne, T. 2012. Edge features, catenae, and dependency-based Minimalism. Linguistic Analysis 34, 3-4, 321-366.
Osborne, T. and T. Groß 2012a. Constructions are catenae: Construction Grammar meets Dependency Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 23, 1, 163-214.
Osborne, T. and T. Groß 2012b. Antecedent containment: A dependency grammar solution in terms of catenae. Studia Linguistica 66, 2, 94-127.
Osborne, T., M. Putnam, and T. Groß 2012. Catenae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax 15, 4, 354-396.

[1] O'Grady (1998) introduced the concept of catena as the basis for his analysis of the idiom syntax. However, O'Grady did not call the corresponding syntactic unit a chain, but a chain . The term katena was introduced later by Osborne et al. (Osborne et al., 2013) to avoid confusion with the previously existing notion of the “chain” of minimalist theory .

[2] The concept of catena has been extended beyond the analysis of O'Grady's idioms. See Osborne (2005), Osborne et al. (2011), Osborne (2012), Osborne and Groß (2012a), Osborne and Groß (2012b), and Osborne et al. (2012).