The architecture of language can be broken down in a number of ways, according to the particular conception of linguistic function that is to be tested.

The AIT analysis includes a few important neologisms in order to concentrate upon two distinct sentential or propositional, elements:

1) A word or phrase that, through the structure of its utterance, announces the existence of some particular entity or occurrence.

2) A word or phrase that indicates the modes of the existence of such entities or occurrences. In order to qualify as a sentence or proposition, any string of words must consist of both these elements. And although sentences or propositions must themselves depend upon a combination of semantic and syntactic functions, these can be analysed according to how they enable this basic structure.
The term Extantal Imbuant is used to identify phrases of the first kind, which are usually the subject of a statement. In general, if you utter a single word in a declarative manner, it will tend to have something of this quality. But with a more complex Imbuant, e.g., "The Queen of Scotland's hat," the syntactic organisation allows this phrase to announce the existence of one entity, and not a series of disconnected entities. There are three other types of Imbuant which will be outlined later.

The term Modal Informant is used to identify phrases of the second kind, which are usually the predicate clause of a statement. It introduces a mode or modes of the existence generally not already made explicitly extant within the Imbuant, to give it a more specific character, state, or manner etc. As such, it can be either of a temporary nature or some more specific permanent condition.
This form of analysis produces its most interesting results when it is used to examine the role played by the various conjugations of ‘be.’

Consider a basic sentence like: "Mary is brave."

Here, the existence of Mary is wholly announced within the simple use of her name. Of itself, the word "is" does not say anything more about the simple fact of her existence. Rather, it allows her already announced existence to be attributed or processed into a specific mode of existence. For the function of ‘be’ is always to exhibit the mode of existence of the Extantal Imbuant and never to state the simple fact that it exists.

Thus AIT analyses this sentence down into the following elements:

"Mary [Extantal Imbuant] is [Modal Processant] brave [Modal Informant]."

This introduces the third basic element of AIT terminology.

For AIT the function of the Modal Processant is wholly syntactic. It is a syntactic enabler distinguished by its purely systematic processing function. It should however be noted that although, wherever it appears and in whatever conjugational form it does so, ‘be’ always equates to the Modal Processant function, the reverse is not the case. The Modal Processant function is wholly for enabling admissible sentences - it indicates that the descriptive element of the sentence is specifically synchronal of the existent element. It functions in such a way that attention is directed to what the sentence as a whole states - the particular modality of a particular extant person or thing. Thus the syntactic organisation allows the sentence to announce the mode of existence of the entity introduced by the Imbuant.

The notion of the Processant function as syntactic is based upon the fact that it does not entail any kind of ‘existence reference.’ And this leads to the further conclusion that the Processant function in any language - which necessarily includes the ‘be’ conjugation in English - is not that of a verb. In the classification of ‘be’ as ‘verb of existence,’ ‘verb’ and ‘existence’ are each implied by the other. In traditional grammar, a verb is classified as a word that denotes the occurrence or performance of an action or a process. Where ‘be’ is classified as a verb, this is takes place upon the basis of its formal similarity to words that do indeed perform the verb-function. But since there is no obvious action or process to which it manifestly refers, it is then taken as referring to the action or a process of existing. In modern descriptive linguistic analysis, a verb is a word or group of words that function as the predicate of a sentence or introduces the predicate or verb phrase. Here, the verb function and the Processant function are not properly distinguished.

Two: The Functions of the Processant.

Before anything can be specifically stated about the mechanisms that reveal how the Processant can function as it does, it is important to lay out these functions with as much clarity as possible.

i) Modal Indication. For AIT, the Processant function cannot be described in the traditional sense as that of a "copula" for, upon closer investigation, it does not strictly perform any kind of "joining." This can be seen if one considers the difference between "The tall man," and "The man is tall." To some extent one could say that in both "The man" is ‘joined’ to "tall" but, in fact, these elements are not so irrevocably joined in the latter as in the former. In both cases, the man has the individuated or specific mode of existence "tall," but only in the second case is this mode of existence specifically held forth as that which the utterance points out. Thus a string of words that does not contain a specific Processant function, cannot be said to contain a Modal Informant. And in any string of words where the Modal Processant appears, attention is specifically drawn to the particularity of the Modal Informant. Whether or not the mode of existence is stated as temporarily or permanently belonging to the Imbuant, it is the indication of the Modal informant that provides the contextual point of the utterance. (It is for this reason that in AIT, the Processant is also referred to as a "Modal Indicant," hence "Analytical Indicant theory.")

ii) Modal Interrogation. The Modal Processant, in its role of modal indication, functions such as to exhibit a Modal Informant. This introduces the next function to be considered, since where a mode of existence is thus exhibited, it can be examined and hence challenged. A sentence or proposition is distinguishable from other types of utterance, inasmuch as it explicitly says something (the Informant) about something (the Imbuant.) But this something that is exhibited can be detached from the Imbuant, inasmuch as it is exhibited within the possibility of not being a mode of existence of the Imbuant. This aspect of the Processant can be seen most clearly within the role it has within question formation, within the way it allows the sentence "The man is tall" to be transformed into the question "Is the man tall?" Here it can be seen that the so-called copuletic function is inferred from the fact that where a mode of existence is displayed as a Modal Informant of a particular Extantal Imbuant, it can be effectively challenged as to its modal informancy, and disjoined from the imbuant to which it is presented as pertaining. Thus it is assumed that the possibility of this disjunction arises out of a previous conjoining of the imbuant to an Informant, as opposed to the indication function that AIT proposes.

But more importantly, the Processant function introduces into the structure of language the question of the veracity of utterances. The cognitive possibility of ‘truth’ or ‘falsehood’ is created out of this particular syntactic structure. A proposition must make use of the Processant function, which displays a particular mode of existence. This again can be seen if one considers the distinction between "The tall man," and "The man is tall," which both describe the same modes of existence. The difference is that the Processant allows these modes of existence to be displayed in terms of a possible correspondence wherein the Informant pertains the Imbuant. Obviously, we can then test this proposition, as to whether ‘tall’ does indeed correspond to ‘the man,’ but only because this has been initiated into a separable pertaining correspondence by the Processant.

It should of course be noted that there are in fact two types of ‘correspondence’ simultaneously at work here. The first we can call semantic correspondence. Where someone points to a dog and says "cat," there is no semantic correspondence between the referent and the standard usage of this particular word. The question of semantic correspondence does not of course arise where the referent is not physically present, which is precisely the case where the referent is made manifest through Extantal Imbuance. Nevertheless, it is the distinction between the actually perceived referent and that which is extantally imbued which allows semantic non-correspondence to be made manifest.

The second type of correspondence, which we can call propositional correspondence, is directly attributable to the Processant function. Here, the semantic reference of the Informant is separated from that of the Imbuant in order to be related back to it. This propositional correspondence itself depends upon a semantic correspondence between the Informant and a particular aspect of that to which the Imbuant refers. If both these semantic correspondences hold, then the proposition itself can be said to be true. Thus the Processant allows correspondence/non-correspondence to be introduced into the formal structure of language, in a way that goes beyond the correct/incorrect use of words upon which semantic correspondence alone depends.

Three: Some More Terminology.

The Extantal Imbuant is a word or phrase that, in referring to something, must also instantiate it as existing. That is to say, the Extantal Imbuant linguistically effects its own referent. This introduces another element of the AIT terminology, that of Extantal Reification. Roughly speaking, an Extantal Reificant is coincident with an ‘abstract noun.’ But, more strictly, Extantal Reification refers to the linguistic process by which such an abstraction is brought about. For example, a word like ‘life’ functions perfectly well as a short-hand term that can describes a mode of existence of an entity, as in the verb or adjective ‘live.’ But in the form of a noun it creates the impression of having a specific referent, then taken as an ‘essence’ or ‘substance’ that has modes of existence of its own. This will generally happen wherever a verb or an adjective is habitually placed as the subject of a sentence and thus functions as an Extantal Imbuant. Strictly speaking, any Extantal Imbuant carries out a function of Extantal Reification. But where the subject of a sentence is itself a word or phrase that habitually refers to an observable entity, as opposed to a mode of existence of an entity, then this function is less marked.

In many regular sentences however, Extantal Reification is tempered by its subsequent reference to an Extantal Objectant. For example, the sentence "The prevailing opinion is that Bill Clinton should not be impeached," can be analysed as follows. The prevailing

"The prevailing opinion [Extantal Imbuant/Reificant] is [Modal Processant] that Bill Clinton should not be impeached," [Modal Informant]

Since the Modal Informant contains the phrase "Bill Clinton should not be impeached," within which "Bill Clinton" functions as an Extantal Imbuant, this becomes the object to which the Reificant is referred, and hence the Modal Informant contains an Extantal Objectant. The Objectant is a secondary sentential extantialisation, enabled by the standard noun function. But as an Objectant, the secondary referent is tied to the primary referent, announced by the Extantal Imbuant, as the object of its mode of existence. This can be seen in a sentence like "James is eating the apple." Here, the Extantal Objectant serves to establish that the apple is the object to which the Imbuant is referred, such that the mode of existence of the Imbuant is also that of the Objectant.

Thus the sentence can be reversed, to give "The apple is being eaten by James." This operation, where the Objectant of the first sentence can be made into the Imbuant of the second, is known as the Modal Switch. Here, the mode of existence is transformed from active to passive with regard to the switched Imbuant, in order to preserve the original relation wherein the Objectant is referred to the Imbuant.