Misconstruing Tagalog Prepositional Phrases As Subjacency Duplexes

Martin & Doran (2023: 42-3):

The same kind of problem arises in Tagalog and Korean. In Tagalog for example Receiver and Recipient participants are marked with sa. The projecting clause in “Nasaan kaya si Ningning?” sabi niya sa sarili. ‘“Where might Ningning be?” he said to himself.’ is analysed in (34) below – treating sa sarili ‘to himself’ as a subjacency duplex.

As introduced in (8) above, Tagalog uses the same pre-position sa to mark Direction. Outside of the semantics of the Processes involved (sabi ‘say’ vs lapit ‘approach’) there is nothing to distinguish the sa sarili ‘to himself’ and sa kanya ‘to him’ phrases. Accordingly a subjacency duplex analysis is proposed in (35).

The more general issue arising here is that in Tagalog there is arguably no need to recognise a distinction between nominal groups and prepositional phrases. Virtually all participants and circumstances are realised by subjacency duplexes with a #β clitic marking the role of an α nominal group in clause structure (Martin 1996b, 2004b).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, no argument has been proffered in support of applying a subjacency duplex analysis to this type of instance. From an SFL perspective, this is simply a Receiver realised by a prepositional phrase, as in the English gloss. That is, the authors have simply rebranded a prepositional phrase as a subjacency duplex.

Moreover, the interpretation of the prepositional phrase as a subjacency duplex misrepresents a unit with no logical structure as one with a logical structure. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 425):

But note that prepositional phrases are phrases, not groups; they have no logical structure as Head and Modifier, and cannot be reduced to a single element.

And again, as adpositions are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the aims of the paper: a subjacency duplex analysis of structure markers.

[2] As the phrase 'outside of the semantics' demonstrates, the perspective taken here by the Martin & Doran is again the opposite of the perspective taken in SFL. That is, instead of identifying how meanings are expressed, the authors are concerned with identifying what expressions mean. From an SFL perspective, this instance is simply a Location realised by a prepositional phrase, as in the English gloss. Again, the authors have simply rebranded a prepositional phrase as a subjacency duplex.

Again, the interpretation of the prepositional phrase as a subjacency duplex misrepresents a unit with no logical structure as one with a logical structure. And again, as adpositions are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the aims of the paper: a subjacency duplex analysis of structure markers.

[3] To be clear, the examination of this claim for instances of Tagalog presented in this paper have demonstrated that the claim is invalid. All cases presented are analysable as clause elements realised by adpositional phrases (adposition + nominal group).

And again, as adpositions are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the aims of the paper: a subjacency duplex analysis of structure markers.

Misconstruing Adpositions As Structure Markers

Martin & Doran (2023: 41-2):

Our analysis raises issues about how far to extend subjacency duplex modelling in our descriptions. For adpositions this brings us in effect to the fuzzy boundary between participants and circumstances and the line drawn between structure markers on the one hand and prepositions or co-verbs on the other. The following excerpts from Halliday with Matthiessen (2014) flag the distinction as follows:

There is also one class of expressions with of, one of the few places where of functions as a full preposition (i.e. representing a minor process) as distinct from being merely a structure marker; for example, die of starvation. The corresponding WH- forms are why? or how?. (2014: 321)

The Medium is also the only element that is never introduced into the clause by means of a preposition (again with the same exception of medio-receptives); it is treated as something that always participates directly in the process. (Note that the structure the cooking of the rice, where the Medium follows of, is not an exception; of is functioning here, as it typically does, not as preposition but as structure marker – cf. genitive ‘s in the rice’s cooking.) (ibid. 341)

What appears to be taken as criterial here is whether or not of is simply positioning participants in transitivity structure or is specifying some kind of “circumstantial” meaning (e.g. “cause” in die of starvation; cf. die from starvation). For many languages the challenge here lies in drawing a line between peripheral participants (e.g. roles akin to English Recipients and Receivers) and Circumstances of Location — and their marking by the same adposition (e.g., English to, Tagalog sa, Korean e). In terms of this paper we are exploring how to draw a line between a subjacency duplex analysis (restricted perhaps to Recipients and Receivers in English) and a prepositional phrase analysis (restricted perhaps to Circumstances of Location in English).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, as previously demonstrated, the argument for interpreting submodification in a nominal group as a subjacency duplex structure was invalid and based on misunderstandings of theory. And no argument whatsoever has been proffered for the validity of applying the model to other structures.

[2] As previously demonstrated, because the authors misconstrue structure, the relationships between functions, as the functions themselves, they also misconstrue markers of those functions, adpositions, as structure markers. Because adpositions are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the aims of the paper: a subjacency duplex analysis of structure markers.

[3] This misunderstands the quotes from Halliday & Matthiessen (2014). To be clear, their point is that the preposition of either functions as a 'full preposition', that is as a minor Process/Predicator, or it does not, in which case it functions as a structure marker that marks a relation between two nominal groups.

[4] Again, the perspective taken here by the Martin & Doran is the opposite of the perspective taken in SFL. That is, instead of identifying how meanings are expressed, the authors are concerned with identifying what expressions mean. For an SFL approach to these matters, see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 167-176) on degree of participanthood and degree of involvement.

Misconstruing Word Rank Iterative Logical Structures As Group Rank (i) Iterative Experiential Structures And (ii) Non-Iterative Logical Structures

Martin & Doran (2023: 31):

The discussion in this section indicates that we need to loosen up the association of experiential and logical meaning with specific types of system and structure – as outlined in Table 2 (setting aside paratactic complexing to simplify the discussion here). 

For experiential meaning the table draws on the contrast in English between a Deictic Numerative Thing structure for which non-recursive systems insert each function once and Epithet Thing Qualifier structures for which recursive systems allow for multiple Epithets and Qualifiers independently modifying the Thing (notated with an “ⁿ” superscript below). 

For logical meaning the table contrasts duplexes deriving from non-recursive systems with series deriving from recursive ones (e.g. the contrast between Pitjantjatjara and English, for example, as far as grading is concerned). The notation allows for both progressive and regressive duplexes and series (i.e. “left-headed” α β… vs “right-headed” β α dependency structures). And duplexes are distinguished from series by marking their culminative dependent β element with “#”.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously demonstrated, the authors' notion of a non-recursive system and non-iterative structure for a logical structure is based on their misunderstanding of the nature of recursive systems and the iterative structures that realise them. And the authors' notion of a recursive system and iterative structure for experiential structure is based on mistaking recursive systems and iterative structures of the logical metafunction at word rank for recursive systems and iterative structures of the experiential metafunction at group rank.

That is, what the authors presented as a non-iterative logical structure at group rank was an iterative logical structure at word rank: a two-unit hypotactic word complex. And what the authors presented as an iterative experiential structure at group rank was actually an iterative logical structure at word rank: a hypotactic word complex realising an Epithet.

[2] As previously explained, here the authors misconstrue the word rank iterative logical structures that can realise elements of group structure as iterative experiential structures at group rank. But here they also create theoretical inconsistency by proposing different structural types obtaining between different elements of the same unit. 

[3] As previously explained, here the authors misconstrue the word rank iterative logical structure that realises a submodified Epithet as a group rank non-iterative structure. But here they also create theoretical inconsistency by proposing different logical structural types obtaining between different experiential elements of the same unit.

[4] To be clear, Matthiessen (1995: 600-2) proposes a textual system of CULMINATION, at clause rank, as a written mode analogue of spoken mode INFORMATION. The authors, however, just use 'culminative' to mean 'final', without any acknowledgement of Matthiessen.

Misunderstanding Recursive Systems

Martin & Doran (2023: 30-1):

What about the link between “logical” systems and iterative structures?

Rose (2001, 2021) presents overviews of logical resources in Western Desert (Pitjantjatjara), taking into account the possibility of what he calls simplexes, duplexes and series – with the choice of series leading to a recursive system realised by iterative structure. For nominal group choices, he notes that the series option is not available for grading within Epithets. So an adjective can be graded once, but we do not find series such as very much more difficult. An example of a grading duplex is presented in (17), adapted from Rose (2021:70).

Rose (2021) further reports that paratactic series are possible for Pitjantjatjara groups and words in general, but that hypotactic relations at these ranks (and certain choices at clause rank) are restricted to duplexes – in orbital terms a head and just one dependent satellite. His work thus documents the possibility of logical systems realised by non-iterative structures.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, even Rose (2001: 368) acknowledges that he took the terms 'simplex' and 'duplex' from Matthiessen (1995).

[2] To be clear, this misunderstands the basic nature of a recursive system. A recursive system is one which provides the option of re-entering the same system.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 438) provide an example:

In the case of a simplex, a single rank unit, the RECURSION system is not entered, because the system is a means of specifying iterative structures (complexes). In the case of a duplex, a two-unit complex, the feature 'stop' is selected (along with the other features that specify the tactic and logico-semantic relations of the complex). In the case of a "series", a complex of three or more units, the feature 'go on' is selected, and the system is re-entered, and either 'stop' or 'go on' is then selected, depending on how many units in the complex.

[3] To be clear, the 'grading within Epithets' is realised by a two-unit word complex, an iterative structure realising a recursive system at word rank. In this case, the recursive system is entered, and the feature 'stop' is selected, as explained above.

[4] To be clear, Rose's 'grading duplex' is simply the word complex that realises the submodification in the nominal group:

[5] To be clear, Martin proposes orbital structure as experiential, but here the authors have used it to describe a hypotactic logical structure. As previously observed, Martin's orbital structure misconstrues multivariate experiential structure as hypotactic logical structure. Here the authors reveal that misunderstanding themselves.

[6] This is misleading, because it is not true. Rose's work does not document the possibility of logical systems realised by non-iterative structures, because it presents an iterative structure, a two-unit word complex, that realises a recursive system, as demonstrated above.

Misrepresenting Recursive Systems As Specifying Experiential Structures

Martin & Doran (2023: 30):

The possibility of multiple Epithets (English) and Qualifiers (Korean and English) indicates that too strict an association of non-recursive systems with experiential structure is not tenable. Recursive systems clearly underlie both the English Epithets and Korean Epithets and Qualifiers exemplified above.⁷

⁷ At first blush Halliday’s (1985) analysis of English Classifiers would appear to exemplify a comparable pattern. But English Classifiers do not each independently modify the Thing (the structure is serial not orbital). In fact structures of this kind would be better modelled as hypotactic word complexes recursively taxonomising the entity construed by the Thing function (see Martin et al. 2021 for discussion).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is misleading because it is untrue. The 'multiple Epithets' example demonstrated that the experiential function is realised by a logical structure at word rank: a paratactic or hypotactic word complex. The 'multiple Qualifiers' example featured an embedded clause complex serving as a single Qualifier.

[2] To be clear, firstly, this misconstrues experiential structure (the Classifier–Thing relation) as logical ('modify', 'serial'). Secondly, it claims that both the Classifier and the Thing are both Heads, since Martin's serial structure is 'multi-nuclear'. Thirdly, Martin's serial structure misconstrues univariate structure as parataxis ('multi-nuclear'). Fourthly, it proposes a different structure type (serial) for just two elements of a nominal group: Classifier(s) and Thing. 

[3] This is misleading. Firstly, the notion that the Classifier 'taxonomises' the Thing is Halliday (1985), not Martin (2021). Halliday (1985: 160, 164):

This is an experiential structure which, taken as a whole, has the function of specifying (i) a class of things, namely trains, and (ii) some category of membership within this class. We shall refer to the element expressing the class by the functional label Thing. … 

The Classifier indicates a particular subclass of the thing in question, e.g. electric trains, passenger trains, wooden trains, toy trains.

Secondly, the notion that a Classifier can be realised by a hypotactic word complex is Halliday (1985), not Martin (2021), as expressed in Matthiessen (1995: 665):

CLASSIFICATION is the resource for specifying successively more specific classes of a thing; it is used to represent taxonomies. Table 7-14 presents a few examples from geology.

The recursive system is, of course, logical and at word rank.

Misconstruing Nominal Group Qualifiers

Martin & Doran (2023: 29-30):

The same kind of pattern arises for both Korean and English as far as Qualifiers are concerned — multiple Qualifiers are possible, each modifying the Thing function independently of one another (and thus can be moved around with respect to one another without affecting the construal of experiential meaning). Korean examples are provided in (15) and (16) below, with the same two Qualifiers, but in reverse sequence (Martin and Shin 2021). The English translations for these examples display the same pattern, but with the Qualifiers following rather than preceding the Thing.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, based on the English translation, there is only one Qualifier in (15) and (16), each one realised by an embedded paratactic extending clause complex:

The interdependency relation is paratactic because either clause can stand on its own without the other, and the expansion relation is extension: addition because the meaning is 'X and Y'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 471-2).

The reason why Martin & Doran misconstrue this as two Qualifiers is methodological: they are concerned with assigning function to form (embedded clauses), instead of assigning forms to function (Qualifier). That is, they are decoding form instead of encoding function.

[2] To be clear, the theoretical reason why the embedded clauses 'can be moved around with respect to one another without affecting the construal of experiential meaning' is that parataxis is a symmetrical relation. Halliday (1985: 198):

In principle, the paratactic relation is logically symmetrical … 'salt and pepper' implies 'pepper and salt', so the relation is symmetrical;

Misconstruing The Multivariate Structure Of Nominal Groups

Martin & Doran (2023: 29):

This restriction contrasts with English, where alongside the adjective complexing in (13), there can be an indefinite number of Epithets as in (14).⁵

The fact that functions such as Epithets can be repeated calls into question a strict interpretation of multivariate structures as comprising elements of structure that only occur once.⁶

 ⁵ Ghesquiere (2014:53) notes that Dixon (1982:25) refers to such structures as involving “independent modification”. Breban (2010: 37–38) distinguishes “classifying adjectives”, which enter into recursive modifications of their head from “descriptive adjectives” which independently modify theirs. Tucker (1998) and Vandelanotte (2002) make a similar distinction between “coordinated adjectives” and “non-coordinated” (or “modifier-sequence”) adjectives. 

 ⁶ From the perspective of orbital structure we can have an unlimited number of Epithets, each modifying a nuclear Thing function.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the difference between (13) and (14) is that (13) presents a paratactic word complex as serving one Epithet, whereas (14) presents a hypotactic word complex serving three Epithets, one for each adjective. Both types of representation are used in SFL. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 388, 397):

[2] To be clear, as previously explained, it is Systemic Functional Grammar itself that 'calls into question' the Scale-&-Category Grammar 'interpretation of multivariate structures as comprising elements of structure that only occur once'. For example, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 364):

Categorisation within the class is typically expressed by one or more of the functional elements Deictic, Numerative, Epithet and Classifier. They serve to realise terms within different systems of the system network of the nominal group.

[3] To be clear, as previously explained, Martin's orbital structure misconstrues the multivariate structure of the experiential metafunction as a hypotactic univariate structure of the logical metafunction. The authors betray this misconstrual here by their use of the term 'modifying', which denotes a hypotactic univariate structure, not a multivariate one. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 389):

Misconstruing Multivariate And Paratactic Structures As Having "Heads"

 Martin & Doran (2023: 25):

For particulate structure this means bringing nuclearity into the picture and re-interpreting multivariate structures as orbital (with satellites related to a single nucleus) and univariate structures as serial (i.e. multi-nuclear). This additional variable (i.e. nuclearity) allows for the recognition of “heads” in both experiential and logical structures. The canonical “head” in an orbital structure is exemplified by the Thing in nominal groups, the Event in verbal groups or the configuration of Process and Medium in clause structure; the canonical “head” in serial structure is the α variable in hypotactic complexes – e.g. the primary tense choice in an English or Spanish verbal group (Martin et al. 2023) or the projecting clause in a reporting clause complex across languages.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously explained, Martin's model of structure misconstrues multivariate experiential structure as hypotactic univariate logical structure, and so it is this misconstrual that 'allows for the recognition of "heads" in experiential structures'. However, because Martin's model of structure misconstrues univariate logical structure as paratactic univariate structures, it does not 'allow for the recognition of "heads" in logical structures', since a paratactic structure links elements of equal status, and as such, has no Head element.

[2] This is potentially misleading. To be clear, unacknowledged by Martin & Doran, the notion of Process and Medium as nucleus in the ergative model of the English clause appears in Halliday (1985: 147):

The Process and the Medium together form the nucleus of an English clause; and this nucleus then determines the range of options that are available to the rest of the clause. Thus the nucleus ‘tear + cloth’ represents a small semantic field that may be realised as a clause either alone or in combination with other participant or circumstantial functions.

Importantly, for Halliday, the meaning of 'nucleus' is distinct from the meaning of 'head', which is why he uses the different terms. The nuclear model construes a cline from the most central to the most peripheral. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 348):

the nucleus of ‘Process + Medium’ has an inner ring of additional participants as well as an outer ring of circumstances surrounding it: see Figure 5-40.

[3] To be clear, this is an instance of self-contradiction. If Martin models logical structure as serial (i.e. multinuclear), and it is nuclearity that 'allows for the recognition of heads', then, in a logical structure every single nucleus is a head, and there are no satellites.

[4] This is misleading, because it invites the reader to falsely credit Martin et al. (2023) with the insight that the realisation of primary tense serves as the element of the logical structure of a verbal group. Halliday (1985: 177):

The primary tense is that functioning as Head, shown as α.

Misconstruing Hypotactic vs Paratactic Logical Structure As Experiential vs Logical Structure

Martin & Doran (2023: 25, 26):

Inspired by Halliday’s paper³ and by his own work on Tagalog grammar (e.g. 1995a) and English text structure, Martin (1988, 1995b, 1996a, 2000, 2004a, 2008, 2018) proposes the correlations between kinds of meaning and types of structure outlined in Figure 3. For particulate structure this means bringing nuclearity into the picture and re-interpreting multivariate structures as orbital (with satellites related to a single nucleus) and univariate structures as serial (i.e. multi-nuclear).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Halliday updated his 1979 model in Halliday (1994: 36), and it remains so twenty years later in Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 85):

[2] To be clear, Martin's orbital structure for experiential meaning is inconsistent with the notion of multivariate structure. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

A multivariate structure is a configuration of different functional relationships, like Theme + Rheme, Mood + Residue + Moodtag, or Actor + Process + Recipient + Goal.

Martin's model, however, interprets the multivariate structure of the experiential metafunction as just one type of relationship: that between a nucleus and satellite. To the extent that a satellite is dependent on a nucleus, this is actually a model of a hypotactic univariate iterative structure of the logical metafunction.

On the other hand, Martin's serial structure for logical meaning is partially consistent with the notion of univariate structure. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

A univariate structure is an iteration of the same functional relationship … . Such iterative structures are unique to the logical mode of meaning; they are, as noted, formed out of logico-semantic relations.

However, in giving each nucleus equal status, this is only a model of a paratactic univariate iterative structure of the logical metafunction.

In short, Martin's model misconstrues the difference between multivariate experiential and univariate logical structures as the difference between hypotactic and paratactic logical structures.

Misconstruing A Non-Problem As A Problem [3]

Martin & Doran (2023: 21):

Another problem with an analysis of this kind is that it is not just nominal groups in Korean and Tagalog that are assigned a role in clause structure through adpositions; the same set of adpositions are used with embedded clauses. In (6),  for example, the structure marker reul positions the embedded clause as Phenomenon in a mental clause. Following SFL notation the embedded clause is enclosed in double square brackets.

Using this analysis would suggest that we need to treat Korean post-positions as culminative elements of embedded clause structure as well as nominal group structure – and set up an embedded vs non-embedded clause system at clause rank to trigger realisations of the structure marker. This would entail a loss of generalisation as far as the role of function markers in groups and embedded clauses is concerned.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is not a problem either. The function of an adposition is to mark a transitivity function, and here it marks an embedded clause as serving such a function: Phenomenon. The fact that the authors misconstrue this as a problem demonstrates that they taking the view 'from below' (form) instead of the SFL view 'from above' (meaning).

Again, because these adpositions mark functions instead of structures — relations between functions — they are not structure markers, and so are irrelevant to the concerns of this paper.

[2] To be clear, this is not true. Again, the obvious solution is to treat the adposition as a separate element in a phrase that also includes an element realised by a nominal group or embedded clause. Again, the authors' suggestion demonstrates that they taking the view 'from below' (form) instead of the SFL view 'from above' (meaning).

[3] To be clear, Matthiessen (1995: 600-2) proposes a textual system of CULMINATION, at clause rank, as a written mode analogue of spoken mode INFORMATION. The authors, however, just use 'culminative' to mean 'final', without any acknowledgement of Matthiessen.

Misconstruing A Non-Problem As A Problem [1]

Martin & Doran (2023: 19-20):

One problem with this analysis is that in both Korean and Tagalog a single postposition or pre-position can be used to specify the role of a nominal group complex. In (4) choego ui gamdok ‘best director’ and tteooreuneun seuta ‘rising star’ are complexed by the linker gwa ‘and’ as the Actor participant role — a joint role marked once by the Korean EFM ga (analysed below as culminating the second nominal group). The structure of this paratactic complex is notated as 1 + 2 below.

Similarly in (5) Tonyo and Ningning are complexed by the linker at as Goal — a joint role marked once by the Tagalog plural FM sina.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is not a problem. The function of each adposition is to mark a transitivity function, and in each case, it marks a nominal group complex as serving such a function: Actor in (4), Goal in (5). The fact that the authors misconstrue this as a problem demonstrates that they taking the view 'from below' (form) instead of the SFL view 'from above' (meaning).

Again, because these adpositions mark functions instead of structures — relations between functions — they are not structure markers, and so are irrelevant to the concerns of this paper.

[2] To be clear, Matthiessen (1995: 600-2) proposes a textual system of CULMINATION, at clause rank, as a written mode analogue of spoken mode INFORMATION. The authors, however, just use 'culminating' to mean 'ending', without any acknowledgement of Matthiessen.

Misconstruing Tagalog Adpositions As Structure Markers

Martin & Doran (2023: 19):

Martin and Cruz  (2022) adopt a similar analysis for function marking pre-positions in Tagalog. There the adpositions (ang/si/sina,ng/ni/nina,sa/kay/kina) occupy first rather than culminative position in almost every nominal group that plays a participant role in clause structure. And in conjunction with verb morphology these clitics sort out both participant roles and thematic prominence. Thus in (3), in relation to the affix in- in the Process inaantay ‘was waiting’, the pre-position ni positions Tonyo as Actor and si positions Ningning as Goal and Theme. In (3) “FM” abbreviates Function Marking,“ ntp” abbreviates“ non-theme participant” and “tp” abbreviates “theme participant”.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As the authors make clear, these adpositions mark functions, not structure — the relations between functions — and so do not function as structure markers, and, as such, are irrelevant to the concerns of this paper. 

[2] To be clear, Matthiessen (1995: 600-2) proposes a textual system of CULMINATION, at clause rank, as a written mode analogue of spoken mode INFORMATION. The authors, however, just use 'culminative' to mean 'final', without any acknowledgement of Matthiessen.

Misconstruing Korean Adpositions As Structure Markers

Martin & Doran (2023: 18-9):

This type of analysis is adopted for function marking post-positions in Korean nominal groups in Martin and Shin (2021) and Kim et al.(2023), as illustrated in (2).

The adpositions in question (i/ga, eul/reul, e, ege, hante etc.) sort out the participant roles associated with experiential clause types and in Korean culminate almost every nominal group that plays a participant role in clause structure. The term proposed for these structure markers is Experiential Function Marking (EFM for short). In Example (2), following Kim et al.’s terminology, these markers position the woodcutter as Actor, the winged dress as Undergoer and the nymph as Recipient. In the analysis tables below p1, p2, p3 sort out the marking of participant roles. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the word 'culminate' means 'reach a climax or point of highest development'. Matthiessen (1995: 600-2) proposes a textual system of CULMINATION, at clause rank, as a written mode analogue of spoken mode INFORMATION. The authors, however, just use 'culminate' to mean 'end', without any acknowledgement of Matthiessen.

[2] To be clear, more than twenty years before these authors, Matthiessen (1995: 370-1) discusses the marking of transitivity roles by adpositions, citing the earlier work of Nichols (1986), and adds (op cit: 638):

Adpositions may be deployed not only to realise ideational roles (i.e., participant and circumstance roles in the clause and modifying roles in groups as in English, German, French; Arabic; and Chinese), but they may also be deployed to realise textual roles; for example, in Japanese and Tagalog the (ideational) Theme is marked adpositionally (by the postposition wa in Japanese and by the preposition ang in Tagalog).

[3] Importantly, these adpositions are not structure markers. Instead, as the authors themselves recognise, these are markers of transitivity roles. That is, they are markers of functions, not markers of structures — a function structure being the relations between functions (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 451). As such, the discussion of adpositions in this paper is entirely irrelevant to the concerns of the paper: modelling structure markers.

[4] To be clear, in SFL terms, this the Goal/Medium of the material Process.