By orientation, a clause may designate any category of concept on the empathy hierarchy, including concepts of place, time and manner. Such a proposition-based concept may then take a suitable role in a superordinate proposition. – show subordinate propositions that designate a place, a time and a manner, resp.

Given the valency of the superordinate verb in – , a clause depending on it must be a direct object, and this must designate an entity ranging above the proposition on the empathy hierarchy. These properties of the dependent clauses in the #a versions become explicit in the #b versions, which explicity designate a place, a time and a manner, instead of the situation of the pirate hiding the treasure. In these examples, thus, the semantic function of the entity designated by the subordinate clause of the #a versions does not depend on the category of the entity that they are oriented to. In other words, these are no place, time or manner adjunct clauses.

On the other hand, the category may harmonize with the function. This is the case when an expression designating a place fulfills the function of a local adjunct in its context, an expression designating a time fulfills the function of a temporal adjunct, and finally an expression designating a manner fulfills the function of a manner adjunct in its context.

In and , the subordinate clauses in the #a versions are the same as before. Neverthess, as proved by the different valency of the superordinate verb and by the prepositions appearing in the #b versions, their function in the main clause is different. Now they are a local and a temporal adjunct clause, resp. The point here is that this function is not coded in the #a versions. In these, the adverbial clauses cannot even be preceded by such a preposition.

The structure of is superficially different, but follows the same principle. Way is the nominal concept that the relative clause is oriented to. It is this formal noun which makes the complex noun phrase a manner adjunct. However, its adverbial role in the matrix is not coded.

Needless to say, even if category and function harmonize, both may be coded. This the case not only in the adnominal relative constructions of the #b versions of and . It also happens in .

This, too, is a relative construction. However, the notion that the dependent clause is oriented to, viz. the place, is only coded in the indefinite pro-adverb ma̱í̱ ‘where’; and the function of the circumnominal relative clause in the matrix is coded by the postposition appended to it.

Now occurrences of clauses designating a place, a time or a manner where this category harmonizes with their function are much more numerous than the discrepancies illustrated by – . To the extent that these two aspects of a referential expression do not vary independently of each other, some redundancy is built into the system; and consequently, some parsimony in coding is possible. Especially for local, temporal and manner clauses, it is often sufficient to either code the orientation or the semantic function of the clause. In and , only the category, not the function is coded.

The alternative parsimony happens, too. While in the temporal adjunct clause of , only the category is coded, in , only the function is coded.

The English local relator before has a translation equivalent in French avant. In the translation of , the relator avant would be followed by the universal subordinator que. Its English equivalent (that) is missing from ; nor is there any temporal formative inside the subordinate clause.

The strategy of reducing coding to the function is used regularly in Cabecar.

contains a local adjunct clause. Only its local role is coded by the final postposition. contains a temporal adjunct clause; only its temporal function is coded by the (comitative) postposition. contains a manner clause. Only its modal function is coded by the postposition. In these constructions, the orientation of the subordinate clause to a local, temporal or manner adjunct remains a purely semantic operation, to be inferred from the external function of the clause.

The more strongly the formal noun and the subjunction are grammaticalized, the more variation is observed in their use. If the latter is grammaticalized to an obligatory subjunction, it may even be present in cases where the adverbial clause does not function as an adjunct, as in .

All of this goes to show that the semanto-syntactic configuration of complex sentence constructions cannot simply be inferred from the morphology of the clause connectives involved. Instead, to the extent that these constructions are grammaticalized, the morphology is reduced and partly arbitrary.