Search

This paper introduces a novel unit of syntactic analysis, the catena (Latin for chain; plural catenae). The catena is defined in a dependency-based grammar as a word or a combination of words that is continuous with respect to dominance. According to this definition, any dependency tree or any subtree (complete or partial) of a dependency tree qualifies as a catena. The paper demonstrates that idioms are stored as catenae and that the elided material of ellipsis mechanisms (e.g., answer fragments, gapping, stripping, VP ellipsis, pseudogapping, sluicing, and comparative deletion) is a catena. Constituents are always catenae, but many catenae are not constituents. Based on the flexibility and utility of the catena concept, the claim is put forth and defended that the catena is the fundamental unit of syntax, not the constituent.

English Pseudogapping constructions share some surface similarities with both Gapping and Verb Phrase Ellipsis (VPE). Levin (1978, 1979 [main text]) concludes, however, that Pseudogapping is transformationally unrelated to both Gapping and VPE. We argue that this conclusion is only partially correct. Gapping and Pseudogapping are transformationally related in that they both involve the application of verb movement, in particular sideward movement of the main verb. We take Johnson's (1994) ATB Movement analysis of Gapping as an important precedent in this regard, and we draw from proposals of Nunes (2001) and Nunes and Uriagereka (2000) for the possibility of sideward movement out of coordinate structures and adjunct clauses. After pursuing the sideward movement approach to Pseudogapping (and ultimately Gapping as well), we outline some important empirical differences between Pseudogapping and VPE that we think raise substantial problems for any analysis that treats Pseudogapping and VPE on a par (e.g., Jayaseelan 1990, Lasnik 1995, 1999a, 1999b). We present evidence for a fundamental syntactic difference between Pseudogapping and VPE, and conclude that the VPE analysis of Pseudogapping cannot be maintained.

It is shown that postulating a Focus Phrase above vP enables us to explain such diverse phenomena as the Malayalam question word's position contiguous to V, the ‘remnant’ in English pseudogapping, the clause-final ‘floated’ focus marker in English, and the position of the ‘cleft focus’ in English and Malayalam clefts. Assuming a Kaynean view of the underlying structure of SOV languages, we argue that the ‘canonical’ positions to which the verb's internal arguments are moved in these languages are above this Focus Phrase. Postulating an iterable Topic Phrase above the Focus Phrase (and above the ‘canonical’ positions in SOV languages) enables us to account for the definiteness/specificity constraints on clause-internal scrambling in Malayalam, German and Dutch, and on object shift in Scandinavian. Finally, it is shown that all the functions attributed to an ‘outer’ Spec position of vP are better fulfilled by the Topic/Focus positions above vP that we postulated.