Concrete conjunctions differ semantically from subjunctions in having their governing slot occupied deictically or anaphorically by a reference to the preceding coordinate proposition. For instance, instead of ‘p because q’, we can have ‘q, therefore p)’. The coordinative conjunction therefore contains the demonstrative there, which refers to q and occupies the governing slot of the interpropositional connective for. In English, this paradigmatic relationship obtains in by - thereby and maybe a few more.¹

In many languages, the formatives that signal a subordinative interpropositional relation are a subset of, or otherwise formally related to, a paradigm of case relators, typically adpositions or suffixes. Then coordinative connectives may bear a regular morphological relation to semantically corresponding subordinative connectives. The following table lists a few examples from Cabecar:

The formatives in the left column are enclitic postpositions which also subordinate clauses. The comitative and superior morphemes are polysemous in having a simultaneous temporal and a causal sense, resp. D.Med is the demonstrative of medial deixis, which is the unmarked member of the demonstrative paradigm.

If the subordinate clause precedes the main clause and the subjunction follows the subordinate clause, as is the case in Cabecar, the latter may or may not be resumed (in close anaphora) by the demonstrative. In , the demonstrative jé is optional. Depending on its presence, the interpropositional relator is a conjunction or a subjunction.

¹ S. Blühdorn 2017, §1.2 on “referentially linking connectors” in German.