Concrete relations between two propositions are brought about by interpropositional relators. Like a case relator (e.g. a preposition), an interpropositional relator is an asymmetric bivalent functor which governs one of its arguments and forms a syntagma with it which modifies the other argument. For instance, in ‘S↴ because ↴S’, the conjunction because governs the subordinate clause ↴S and together with it forms an adverbial which modifies S↴.

An interpropositional relator thus converts the proposition that it governs into a reference point for the proposition that it modifies. As before, the reference point proposition (↴S in the example) is called the subordinate proposition and the other the superordinate proposition. Many relators have converse counterparts so that the speaker can choose which of two propositions to assign subordinate status. For instance, instead of ‘S↴ after ↴S’ we may have ‘↴S before S↴’; and instead of ‘S↴ because ↴S’ we may have ‘↴S so that S↴’. The choice depends on considerations of information structure, text cohesion and relevance/emphasis.

The semantic asymmetry between the two propositions in a concrete interpropositional relation may be reflected in structure by a construction in which the reference point proposition is coded in a subordinate clause while the superordinate proposition is coded in a main clause. For the sake of clarity, the concepts of specific interpropositional relations defined below will be illustrated by such asymmetric complex sentences. However, all of the examples may easily be converted into paratactic constructions. S. the section on clause connectives for a regular relation between subjunctions and conjunctions.

On the other hand, wherever possible, examples of subordinate clauses are finite clauses. This, too, is an expository decision due to the fact that semantic differentiation is finer in finite than in non-finite clauses. An onomasiological description of junction in a language shows how each interpropositional relation manifests itself both in paratactic and in hypotactic constructions, with different degrees of desententialization.

One way of classifying concrete interpropositional relations is by the binary parameter of whether or not the subordinate proposition is oriented. If it is not, a variety of causal relations may obtain between the two propositions. If the subordinate proposition is oriented, it does no longer constitute a proposition, but instead a more concrete entity which is a participant in a proposition. It thus comes under ‘Anchoring by participation’ and, if the orientation is coded, under relative clauses. In a semantic perspective, local, temporal and manner clauses are relative clauses, since they are oriented towards a place, a time or a manner which is an aspect of the underlying proposition. Since the subordinate clause then does not designate a proposition, but instead such a more concrete concept, the relation between it and the superordinate proposition is, strictly speaking, no longer an interpropositional relation; and the subordinate clause would rather figure in the functional domain of specification. However, this kind of orientation often does not lead to desententialization and nominalization of the subordinate clause, and equally often, the orientation is not coded. As a consequence, the subjunction used for it is often from the same paradigm as interpropositional subjunctions; so all of these subordinate clauses are usually classed together.