It our linguistic activity, inner verbal discourse, reading, listening or speaking, become aware that this is linguistic activity, become aware of this linguistic activity as such and be conscious of the grammatical and logical structure as it is immanent in our consciousness of such activity. Phaneroscopy, semioscopy. the reflected conscious awareness of what we mean, think, imagine, when we use language.
One of the main applications that Natural Term Logic aims at is to formalize the grammar of natural languages. In order to do this we evidently need to introduce more constructors into the core NTL system. In our article of Stoic Logic and Natural Term Logic we already sketched how indefinite pronouns and their anaphoric constructions as well as certain determiners (definite and indefinite articles) could be treated. At first glance, a very important constructor would seem to be that which is expressed by adding premodifiers or postmodifiers to the head of a noun-phrase. But note that noun phrases in principle will have valence 0 just as sentences. Noun-phrases are formed by adding a determiners to a the rest of the noun phrase (noun and pre/post-modifiers), which we will call the "body" of the noun-phrase. So let us assume that bodies have valency 1. Recall that valency 0 terms in NTL include both truth-bearers and more general objects (but which may be non-denoting) which are non-truth-bearers (for instance, noun-phrases). We introduce two fundamental symbols into NTL: $\vdash T^{(0)}$ which means $T$ is a truth-bearer and the claim is made that it is true and $\downarrow T$ which means that the term denotes.
A very difficult problem in formalizing natural language grammar is how to treat adjective. If $B$ is a 1-valent term expressing a common noun such as "boy", then "tall boy" is also 1-valent and can serve as the body of a noun-phrase, brought to valency 0 by application of a determiner. But how is "tall" to be expressed and how does "tall" act on "boy" (if it does at all)? Does "tall" stand on its own as a 1-valent term so that "tall boy" would be interpreted as $\Lambda_\wedge^{(1,1)} BT$? But what would be the extension of the adjective "big"? How do we compare a big house to a big ant? Or is "tall" a kind of modification or predicate of "boy"? One idea is to interpreted "tall boy" as $\Pi^{(1)}T^{(1)}B^{(1)}$ which could then be closed (or brought to valency 0) by a determiner such as in $\epsilon \Pi^{(1)}T^{(1)}B^{(1)}$, "a tall boy". The problem is interpreting this term. When applies to a the subject "John" it would seem that "tall" is then a property of the "sentence" "John is a boy". This makes sense for adverbial clauses. It would seem more intuitive to make $T$ a property which $B$ satisfies but there does not seem to be a way to make sense of this in NTL, unless we make every adjective a constructor or have an operation which turns terms into constructors. Or we could introduce an "adjectifier" constructor $(T\triangleright^1 B)^{(0)}$ which turns the valency 1 term $T$ into a modifier of $B$. We could interpret our new constructor $T\triangleright B$ as a kind of sub-term of $B$, "those boys who are tall" or "being a boy that is tall" - i.e. as a typical relative clause postmodifier in a noun-phrase.
But recall how $\Pi$-applications can be interpreted functionally and used for genitives. What is the meaning of the property "tall boy"? It is: being a boy and having height greater than the standard height of boys. We can consider kinds of adjectives of the form: being a something and having something bearing a certain relation to the standard measure of such somethings. Thus "John is a tall boy" means that "John is a boy and John's height is greater than the standard height of boys". Thus there are two genitive-functional constructions: "John's height" and "standard height of boys". In NTL we have assume that $\Pi^{(0)}HJ$ is functional (rather than propositioinal), this is an object corresponding to "the height of John". Also $\Pi^{(0)} \overline{H}B$ can be read functionally likewise as "the average height of boys". Let $G^{(2)}$ be the relation of greater. Then "John is a tall boy" should be read (omitting $\Pi^{(0)}$ symbols according to our convention in Natural Term Logic and Stoic Logic): $\Lambda_\wedge BJ(GHJ \overline{H}B)$. Thus tall itself $T$ should have valency two as we can always ask: who is tall? a tall what?
And what about prepositional phrases such as "a tall boy in the garden" in which "in the garden" is also a valency 1 term? But how should we treat prepositions? While "garden" has valency 1 and the determiners convert it into a concrete valency 0 term "the garden", the preposition "in" conceived as a constructor renders it again of valency 1: "in the garden" a property or predicate which an object may or may not satisfy - a prepositional phrase which can function as an adverbial clause. This brings as back to the old question about adverbial clauses. For "Mary is singing in the garden" it would seem that "in the garden" can be read as modifying either "singing" or the sentence "Mary is singing", for we ask: "Where is Mary singing?" and we think, it seems, of the entire state of affairs of Mary and her singing rather than the singing alone abstractly conceived. However for this last reading we could certainly express it in NTL as again $\Pi^{(1)}(pG^{(0)})^{(1)}S^{(1)}$ where $pG$ means the prepositional constructor converting a 0 valency term to a 1 valency term.