Adverbial clauses in Afrikaans are consistently introduced by an overt subordinator, such as omdat because, sodat in order to/so that, tensy unless, terwyl while, or wanneer when. The subordinator occupies the initial position of the clause, but without the option of anything preceding the subordinator. The subordinator is followed by the middle field, with the subject of the finite dependent clause consistently after the subordinator at the beginning of the middle field. Topicalisation within the adverbial clause is not usually possible, neither in front of the subordinator, nor between the subordinator and the subject. The basic pattern of the adverbial clause is set out in example (1).

The adverbial clause as a unit can either precede or follow the main clause, and can even be placed parenthetically in the middle field of the main clause. These options are illustrated by example (5), where example (5c) represents a case of parenthetical insertion of the adverbial clause in the middle field of an infinitive complement clause, which is itself attached to a main clause.

Complement clauses display a range of variability as far as their initial position is concerned, as well as their subsequent word order. The variability is in the form of deviations from the canonical word order of dependent clauses in the direction of the word order of main clauses. As far as finite declarative complement clauses are concerned, the basic dependent clause word-order pattern, as illustrated in example (6a), has an initial subordinator dat that, followed by the middle field in which the subject of the complement clause occupies the initial position, with all the verbs clustered together in the verb-final position. The first variant is one where complementiser omission takes place, and the complement clause has the same word order as a main clause, with the subject in the clause-initial position and the finite verb in the second position, as illustrated by example (6b). The third variant is illustrated by example (6c). This word order is not deemed acceptable in written Afrikaans, but occurs widely in spoken Afrikaans, where the complementiser occurs in the initial position, but it is followed by the subject and the verb, as if it is a main clause. The complementiser is in a certain sense not part of the complement clause, but a link between the main clause and the complement clause, without altering the main-clause word-order properties displayed by the complement clause. It doesn't function like a typical clause-initial constituent either, and is therefore not followed by the verb.

Finite interrogative complement clauses can be differentiated into general and specific interrogatives.

General interrogatives, as illustrated by example (2), take the complementiser of if/whether, and displays limited variability. The initial complementiser is followed by the middle field, in which the subject occupies the first position, while all verbs are clustered in verb-final position.

The specific interrogative complement clauses always start with the interrogative pronoun or the phrase containing the interrogative, but allow two word-order patterns after that. Written Afrikaans mainly prefers the regular subordinate word order, as illustrated in (7a), with the middle field after the interrogative, and all the verbs in the verb-final position. Spoken Afrikaans, as illustrated in (7b), mainly prefers the same word order for the interrogative complement clause as for the interrogative main clause, i.e. with the interrogative phrase in clause-initial position, followed by the first finite verb, then the middle field and the non-finite verbs in the verb-final cluster. When the finite complementiser dat/lat is used alongside the interrogative, as is illustrated by (4c), the word order is consistently subordinate and does not occasionally become similar to the main clause.

Infinitive complement clauses consistently start with the complementiser om for/in order (to), followed by the middle field, with the infinitive verb and its infinitive particle te to in the verb-final position. Infinitive complement clauses do not have overt subjects, so only other arguments of the verb, alongside possible complementives and adverbials, can be found in the middle field. This basic pattern is illustrated by example (8a), with the only variation that Afrikaans allows is for infinitive specific-interrogative complement clauses to position the interrogative pronoun or the phrase containing the interrogative before the complementiser in clause-initial position, as illustrated by (8b), and also by (4b) earlier.

Relative clauses start with a relativiser, which is simultaneously an anaphor that refers to an antecedent noun, and performs some role in the relative clause itself, as argument or as adverbial. Relative clauses always start with the relative pronoun in clause-initial position, or by extension the preposition phrase that contains the relative pronoun, as illustrated by example (9a) and (9b) respectively. The main reason for postulating the clause-initial, rather than verb-second, position for the relative pronoun, is that the relative pronouns parallel the interrogative pronouns and share many properties with them, including extraction from the subordinate clause and similar combination possibilities with prepositions to form complete phrases. They are thus complete constituents of the clause, and not merely subordinators.

The relative clause has the middle field immediately after the clause-initial phrase containing the relative pronoun, and all verbs are clustered together in the final position. Afrikaans does not show any variability in the placement of verbs in relative clauses, they occupy the final position consistently.

When the relative pronoun is part of a preposition phrase, three possible solutions are adopted in Afrikaans. If the relative pronoun is wat that/which, it is possible to form a compound with the preposition, and the compounded form occupies the clause-initial position of the relative clause, leaving a complete gap later the in the clause, as illustrated by (10a). If the relative pronoun is wie who/whom, then compounding does not occur, but the entire preposition phrase can move to the clause-initial position, as illustrated in (9b) above. These first two solutions are two ways of pied-piping the preposition. The alternative, third option, is to strand the preposition in situ in the relative clause, and only move the relative pronoun to the clause-initial position, as illustrated by (10b) and (10c). In the case of preposition stranding, the relative pronoun either keeps it basic form wat, as in (10b), or it changes to waar, without forming a compound with the preposition, which remains stranded, as in (10c).