First I would like to say that Continental Philosophy is just European Philosophy carrying on as it always has, with a few new twists but carrying on the Western Philosophical Tradition. Thus it considers all the categories mentioned but is not caught up on categories because it is mainly concerned with synthesis not analysis. It is not based on specialization, but in the pursuit of philosophical insight.
In order to understand your question better, we need to contrast Continental Philosophy with Analytical Philosophy. This is an offshoot of European Philosophy that began in Vienna but soon transferred itself to Britain and then to the United States. Its lineage went from Kant to Frege to Schlick to Wittgenstein, but in England it was also rooted in Russell, Wittgenstein's advisor for his Ph.D. and Moore. From these roots the branches spread to Quine, Putnam, etc. I would venture that this off shoot of European Philosophy that became popular in England and America is a child of the Cold War and particularly of the McCarthy Era. I venture to say that now the Cold War is over it is going to vanish, slowly but certainly. See here.
So it is Analytic Philosophy that seems to be the norm in English speaking countries that is obsessed with Categories, and with Specialization, and particularly with Analysis rather than synthesis.
In my opinion the main topics of Continental Philosophy over the last century have been Phenomenology, Ontology (including Existentialism), Dialectics and Hermeneutics. But of course there is really every other topic under the sun in there somewhere like Psychoanalysis, Political Economy, Social, Cultural, or Political Critique, Marxism, Literary Critique, Poetics, (you name it, and it is in there somewhere). It is not specialized, it is not isolated in Academia, it has tended to be revolutionary, and politically active. And this is primarily because during the second world war the French Resistance were overwhelmingly communist and we made allies with them. And so even though after the war De Gaulle was placed into power, the intellectuals were all Marxists, and the only Marxists not dominated by the Soviet Union, and thus free to have their own thoughts about what Marxism is and how it related to things like the unconscious, or structuralism, or literature, etc. Semiotics for instance was born out of this mixture of approaches which took off from Russian Formalism.
The major names in this movement are Hegel, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, Derrida, Bataille, Lacan, Baudrillard, Levinas, Deleuze, Zizek, Badiou, etc. This Continental Tradition has been embraced by English Departments across the United States. This is because they give these English specialists a basis for critique of Literature. There are a lot more English Professors than Philosophy professors. And so Continental Philosophy is going Mainstream, as seen in the fact that Zizek spoke at Occupy Wallstreet. I did not hear of any Analytical Philosophers speaking to that crowd. Even though Analytical Philosophers have a grip on Philosophy Departments across the Commonwealth, including ex-commonwealth nations like the USA, they are doomed to irrelevance due to their specialization and their worship of categories or boxes that they dare not think outside of. Continental Philosophers long ago gave up the idea that their thoughts could be contained by any specialties, or categories, but instead they are transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary and will basically meddle in anything.
So there is a strict difference between Analytic and Synthetic traditions of thought. The Synthetic since Kant and Hegel has been the basis for all European thought. Analysis as Kant says comes after synthesis based on a priori projections of things like Spacetime and the Categories.
I noticed that this Q&A site tends have an Analytic bent so I thought I would say something provocative to see if I could liven things up. See my Quora answers for more quasi-Continental strangeness.