Bob Yates provides some examples that relate to clause types, and to
part of speech distinctions:

 > > 1) She needs to make money, and Monica was interviewed on TV tonight.
 > > 2) Because she needs to make money, Monica was interviewed on TV
 > > tonight.
>
> Given both of the sentences 1 and 2 without any other context, I note
> that she in (1) will never be interpreted as referring to Monica.  In
> (2), without any other context, she can be interpreted as referring to
> Monica.
>
> For those committed to seeing grammar as strictly functional, this may
> be a very uninteresting trivial observation.  However, those differences
> in interpreting (1) and (2) are directly related to why most grammatical
> descriptions of English label the two clauses in (1) differently than
> the two clauses in (2).
>
> All catephoric reference is blocked in (3).
>
> 3) She was interviewed on TV because Monica needs to make money.
>
>
> Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University

I find the differences very interesting.

Am I correct in assuming that these differences to confirm
the distinction between dependent and independent clause types?

We have proof, in these examples, that the coordinate and the
subordinate clause types function differently.

Conjunction type plays a role in these differences.  Presumably, the
examples above are an argument _for_ distinguishing between
co-ordinating and subordinating conjunctions.  We have additional
proof that these categories exist, i.e.,

If you can find consistent differences in function, then you can
justify the distinction between the two different categories.

These are some questions I have:

In what way do "those who see grammar as strictly functional"
disagree with or disregard this point?

I guess I am asking what this means, to view grammar "functionally."