This article intends to reveal a specific case of defective academic output. Our title partially mirrors the one used in the study under question – the heading suggests that what we will expose is no more than a trite work interested in excoriating a group on the basis of their politics. Our platform is a “blog”, so we will write for everyone, but we want to be taken seriously, so provide an academic gloss. Little would we expect that the research under scrutiny would have elicited attention, had it been titled more politically correctly, The Parts of Speech of Politics – or Why Those in the Political Centre Use Nouns and Adjectives in Equal Number. [Yawn!]
As reported in at least three of British on-line news sources of February 25, 2016 – a date in the week preceding draft of the present article, researchers led by Dr. Aleksandra Cichocka of the U.K.’s University of Kent revealed the results of a study titled On the Grammar of Politics—or Why Conservatives Prefer Nouns. It suggesed which parts of speech define a person’s political leanings. The research has led to media to devise simple tests pretending to show these inclinations. While we find the cross-cultural effort of that research to be commendable, we warn the general public about the media presentation; and academia about our specific objections – starting with the provocative naming of the work, and ending by showing why the study of the use of words as reported must contain errors not comtemplated in the statistical analysis.
Of Westerns, and Talking Tough
Print media has the luxury of allowing catchy titles in a way that is irrelevant to web-crawlers, which decide which articles to make most visible. While ignoring this fact, we were thinking of westerns to create a title such as Liberals: Have Adjectives – Will Use, in an effort to show the unseen side of the coin – the work by University of Kent’s Dr. Cichocka and her team, On the Grammar of Politics—or Why Conservatives Prefer Nouns. This eventually led to the idea of summarizing the aforementioned work by asking the reader which letter (s)he would use to finish the following sentence:
Go ahead and make …. (a) me happy (b) my day.
We suspect most readers would choose (b). For the purposes of the study by Dr. Cichocka then, you probably support Clint Eastwood and his style. If, now, the dear reader must perforce be a Republican, a conservative, the Eastwood way, because at least an infantile analyis of the study would have it so, would this not rankle anyone self-defined as left-of-centre? Would not these latter have chosen (b) because they know the line from the movie, and not because of crypto-rightwing leanings?
Yes, go ahead, our reader, if you care to see why we criticize the quizzes the media has made based on the study, and as long as you do not fear that your answers become part of data being collected on you by the either the government or private enterprise, – a fear which clearly would put the reader in the ranks of conspiracy theorists – and take the few seconds required to answer the linked quizzes of The Telegraph and The Independent, respectively. The Daily Mail, of the three sources, had the best article, and shunned the inclusion of a mini-questionairre.
So, if the result of your response is a political misrepresentation – although admittedly, the conclusion would not be made on the basis of a sole question, let us see what is wrong with both the media presentation of the study, and the study itself.
Errors of the Media
From the short shrift the media seems to have given to the topic, perhaps there was an underlying sensation of its puerility. To present a quiz with three questions, or with five, is not really a cut above of the “go ahead” question presented further above. It is frivolous, deceptive, and places a weapon at the disposal of those who would arbitrarily divide groups into “us-versus-them”. Granted, that last item can be countered by the same type of argument as “guns don’t kill people, people do”, hence, words, of themselves, do not discriminate – but even if the concept of political correctness did not exist, we can see that words do discriminate.
Of the 8 examples in the 2 newspaper articles, two are suspect. To paraphrase a Telegraph example, would the reader choose: Eastwood (1) is a Republican voter, or (2) votes Republican? We imagine that (1) is the “noun”, and (2) is the “adjective”. We will argue that this choice is contrived, for two reasons: (1) that the voter, in some cases, could conceivably vote in the primaries of another party, and (2) that considering the second possible answer as choosing an adjective is arguable.
The Independent gave an example we found rather twisted. A mother gives the opinion to her offspring that the latter’s shoes are not too large, which is supposed to be an untruth. One might imagine an authentic situation in which the imagined conversation takes place, but our first thought was: why are we asking about the size if we have a preconcieved notion about the matter? Be that as it may, we are given a choice that the maternal figure in question “is lying” or “is a liar”. If the statement were to be made in the presence of the mother, the second choice is too strong. If the statement is made as an appraisal of the situation, we would expect the plain past tense, “lied”, to be a possible answer. Of course, that would not fit the model of the survey. We could also question then, whether the past continuous tense should be viewed as “to be” plus a past participle functioning as an adjective. While this is possible, one could question how appropriate this is in the overall scheme, conidering that the argument is being made that the conclusions are valid across ethnic lines.
The media did not allow for a centrist position. We will assume that this was possible in the case of the original article, as the people surveyed were classed on a continuum. Not allowing for a political centre makes the survey specious. Extremists of one or the other camp would then have all of the other side of the political spectrum punished. This is the method of Stalinists and Nazis.
The newspaper quizzes, in their simplicity, do not contemplate that one may be on the left in economics, but on the right in another sphere, such as religious values, and vice versa.
The newspaper articles, perhaps because of the politics of their owners, do not provide much or any critique of the conclusions made.
It is suspected that no statistician was among the reporters. In fact, even if there were, it was found surprising to see the newspaper articles datelined the day before of what we may read online of the original work.
Specific Errors of the Report
The report looks suspiciously like it sets out to “prove” either what is already known; or reasons circularly, in that it is stated that research shows that conservatives like structure, and that nouns fulfill that epistemic need of this group; which led to the hypothesis that conservatives prefer nouns. Yes, and weapon-makers like the hardest metals for their products, research shows that steel is harder than iron, which leads to the hypothesis that arms manufacturers prefer steel. No research need be done on a foregone conclusion.
Specifically, the tenor of the title suggests that something is going to be proven about conservatives. Before that is done, they are misaligned by declaring them to be close-minded television watchers. In the context of this British survery, since no one can own a television in that land without paying a licence fee, which heavily supports the allegedly anti-establishment British Broadcasting Corporation, it would then suggest that the supposed leftists are failing in their task of opening up the minds of the tube-viewing public.
Since the research compared the use of nouns to adjectives, the title could equally have been, On the Grammar of Politics—or Why Liberals Prefer Adjectives, In fact, to the degree that the results were not skewed by centrists, such an article could supposedly be written using the same data.
We have stated at the beginning that the cross-cultural nature of the study being commendable. Survey data was included from Poland and Lebanon, while analyses of were made of speeches by American presidents.
Nevertheless, we find probable and real objections to what we read.
- All the examples we have seen refer to people. Such may not have been the case, but we ask whether in talking about things. the grammar in use might not change.
- While it is claimed that the findings are also valid in countries with different languages, we question the statistically insignificant limited sample of 3 countries, and the misuse of conclusions, as their grammars are not mutually interchangeable.
- The surveys in Poland and Lebanon were almost totally, if not exclusively, limited to university students, and thus do not represent a cross-section of those societies. In this sense, the article title is again a misnomer; at a minimum, a slight correction should be made to “Why Conservative University Students Prefer Nouns.”
- We see that a careful selection was made of candidates for the survey in Poland, weeding out non-nationals, and those who gave suspicious answers. The reverse would seem true in the case of Lebanon, where we do not know if the students are native, Palestinian refugees, visiting Syrians or Egyptians, etc. One group was even offered a chance at winning a prize, which means some of those surveyed had an incentive, others did not.
- In the Polish survey, when it was discovered that economic liberalism or conservatism was not reflected in the use of nouns as expected, the data was excluded from further consideration.
- The data pertaining to Polish social conservatism was adjusted, according to the report, to Polish society. Possibly this means it was put onto a Gaussian curve, or some statistical equivalent. Without access to the raw data, we are tempted to guess that if too many liberals were generous in their use of nouns, some had to be reclassified. Whatever the case may have been, this type of survey does not, in our opinion, require such a statistical adjustment.
- Analysis of State-of-the-Union addresses by U.S. presidents is again one-dimensional. While there may be some validity in the results, it might be more instructive to look at speeches made by candidates in the U.S. primaries, and check if noun – adjective use conforms not only as expected for party differences, but for the spectrum of opinions within a party. Furtherore, that a Democrat would make a speech, that is, use words, in a way expected by the members of his party, and should produce verbal output distinct from that of a Republican, is rather obvious. Although it would be hard to obtain, to eliminate bias caused by circumstances pushing for an intentional partisan skew of language, the best course of action would be to somewhow obtain the text of friendly chats between a Democrat and a Republican at a cocktail party. If they were found to speak a similar language under the circumstance, then the noun-adjective divide would have to be evaluated as a political tool, and not as the determiner of a political tendency per se.
- We were confused by the assertion, in the section “The Noun as a Vehicle of Conservative Ideology”, that, (paraphrasing) the choice of a noun instead of an adjective communicates greater abstraction, since, in the previous paragraph (the first), it was pointed out that a study in Italy showed leftists using more abstract language that those on the right.
- The sentence fragment referring to the second study “socialconservatism in Lebanon was associated with an increased preference for Arabic nominal sentences (which were composed of nouns only)” is misleading. This type of sentence, also called equational, is of the form “[the] X is Y”, where, in Arabic, the verb is not written, and “Y” is an adjective. We note that in the Polish and American studies, use of adjectives was compared with use of nouns, but suddenly, a sentence which uses named items and their descriptors in equal ratio means that these are compared with the use of sentences with any verb other than the present tense of “to be”. This is pure farce.
Yes, the famous phrase, Allahu akbar, God is great, الله أكبر, is considered all noun in traditional Arabic grammar. Were I a religious Arab offered regime change by the writers of the article here reviewed, I should fear, that after my conservative government were removed, the way-laying of my religion would follow.
In number almost equal to the Moslems, on the political left is sung “The East is Red”, an equational sentence in Arabic, but the national anthem of China.
Let us imagine a survey is to be made about the type of diet, including desserts or other sweets is preferred by children in different cultures. Let us imagine one country, as the United Kingdom during the Second World War, using carrots in baking because of a lack of sugar. Instead of liberals and conservatives, we use boys and girls.
In one country, the boys prefer carrots to cake. Due to the higher percentage of sugars in carrots, the conclusion is made that girls like a sweeter diet than boys. But our survey now goes to a country with no sugar for making cakes, which therefore are made with a sweetish vegetable, such as carrots. These cakes become the equivalent of the Lebanese study’s nominal sentences. So, the study asks whether in this fictitious country, the young population prefers such their cakes over onions. It is evident that the comparison is biased.
We leave with a quick remark about Polish. As the other Slavic languages, Polish uses verbal aspects in a way that is not found in languages of countries to the west of the Slavic nations. It is something not easy for the uninitiated to learn. We might say, pears, apples, and plums are all of the rose family of plants, but if you want one, it does not mean that you like the other. It reminds this author of the time he was in a restaurant, asked for a Riesling (hock) and was offered a red wine, on the grounds that it was from the same winery!
- We wonder what bias may have occurred in favouring answers desired by the researchers. A supposed bias exists based on the placement of choices given. Other errors may result beyond those already mentioned. The first thing that this writer learned about surveys is that there exists a bias in determining income in a neighbourhood, on the basis of only surveying corner properties. In political surveys, the very wording of a question helps shape the answer. This writer was once “surveyed” by a group of secondary school students, who proceeded to falsify the data in his very presence. He has also heard, from the fomer employer of a surveying firm, of how questions were asked in such circumstances as to force a questionable answer to be given.
Suggestions for a Serious Study on Political Leanings
We have already pointed out flaws which have been seen in the studies, and the corrective action was stated implicitly, if not explicitly.
Even if the choice of countries were meaningful, with the bias for university-level responders eliminated, etc., there would still remain a much to be done to allow for a meaningful result.
In the first place, we suggest that textbooks used in a country may result in the formation of a certain political mindset, which might easily change with regime change. Students studying under governments which brook no nonsense will not, even after permissiveness sets in, necessarily change instilled views. In such a case, labelling an individual as liberal or conservative would appear to be correct, depending on the government type which formed that person’s views, but in truth, it would be fairer to say that this individual was either a conformist or non-conformist, otherwise, a prejudice could be formed against generations which formed their opinions under different times or cirumstances.
Given a set of idiomatic phrases, would the translation of these from one language to another result in a shift in the frequency between noun and adjective?
Furthermore, for students of foreign languages, would the textbooks used be representative of the foreign country’s language (or, foreign countries’ language) as to the mix of nouns and adjectives? Would my British textbook for Russian, based on a Soviet text, differ in the idioms and sentences used from the texts for the same language which I have from Germany or the United States?
Given that all the equational sentences defined as nominal in the Lebanese study, were necessarily in the present tense, by obliging answers only in the past tense, and hence making all the sentences verbal, would the political tendency of the respondents have been different as a result, thus invalidating the thesis?
Would, if the entire available printed output of a country were subject to computized analysis, not only yield information confirming known authors’ political persuasion, but the political trends of the time? In Europe, would writers from the noble classes have used nouns more than those from the third estate? Would a shift in style have occurred after the French Revolution or the Revolutions of 1848? We would expect a certain ferment in pre-revolutionary France, a definite increase in the use of adjectives under the Revolutionary Governments of France and Russia, and a heavy use of nouns in countries with Emperors, Monarchs (when not heavily counteracted by revolutionary currents), Falangists, Fascists, Nazis, and other militarist regimes of the right.
In an age which talks about political correctness, we find it hard enough to believe that one should label someone politically – dangerous, is some countries – but to be able to analyze all the published writings from a country would guarantee that it is type-cast, were a consistent pattern to be found. Is this what is wanted under “political correctness” – to state that all X are Y? In that case, political correctness is a fraud, and should be banished forthwith.
Would the language used in the home or with friend or foe evince any particular tendency, and what might that prove?
How do the results of this study explain anything about strong shifts to the opposing political party such as in the cases of British Thatcherism, Canada’s Trudeaumania, or the swing to Reagan in the United States?
Left, Right, Left, Right – Politics, or a March
When this writer was young, he was even more interested about the world than now. Here are a couple of sentences to which he was exposed:
“People of the world, unite, and defeat the [nationality] aggressors and their running dogs.”
“All reactionaries are paper tigers.”
The only adjectives in the above sentences are in noun phrases, and as such, the descriptions in these sentences are predominately nominal. These come from Mao Tse-Tung, or Mao Zedong, as it is now written. The Chinese Revolution verbology, based on this (non-representative) example, did not differ much from the language of Hitler, we would even say, is purely “reactionary” compared with the descriptive language with which Hitler refers to Winston Churchill, twice at this link. These extracts are political enough, but they, at least seemingly, do not fit in with the Cichocka study.
Now, if i were to choose between one of the two ways of describing the above two quotations, depending on one’s personal tastes:
a.1. This information is boring / outrageous. a.2. This is garbage. / This is drivel.
b.1. Heavy / Right on! b.2 This is the truth. / This is our thinking.
Let us go back a bit, to Lenin. How does he shape up in his choice of language? We remember his use of the word “philistines”, which could be additionally insulting to Palestinians. Including in our count the title “Philistinism in Revolutionary Circles”, we find (at this link) a total of seven words with the root letters “philistin”. Three of these are used as nouns; the other four occurences are in noun phrases. Here, a sentence from the same text “It would be an absurdity and folly “, coming from the left, should have more logically have been written, “It would be absurd and foolish”, if it is to conform with the currently-written essay by Dr. Cichocka, et. al.
Furthermore, we remembered hearing somewhere, probably on the BBC, that Hemingway was an enemy of adverbs or adjectives – in fact, he was adverse to both. Here we link to a web site of authors, most of which readers will probably know, who have harsh words for adjectives. Of the 6 of the 10 names this writer recognizes, all are associated with the political left.
A few days later, in a book on law and language, we find a form of Cichoka’s thesis already stated. Translating from the Spanish, “… the formalist … has an explicable horror of insecurity” [Carrio, 61]. This is the conservative. We know the drill, the sociologist will claim to have found “proof”.
Rather than denigrate the conservative, as is done in On the Grammar of Politics, we see a tendency by the left, as epitomized by Bertrand Russel, to obfuscate the meanings of a simple adjective such as “red” – as a word with “the extent of whose application is essentially doubtful”. [Carrio, 59, Russel, On Vagueness.] Our translation: following Russel, anyone giving an adjective as the answer may have applied it in a dubious manner.
In the question of family relationships, let us compare, “[S]he’s sweet” with “[S]he’s a sweetie,”, “[S]he’s a dear,” to “[S]he’s dear.” All in all, are not relationships based more on nouns than adjectives, when using terms of endearment: honey, sweetie, babe, baby, sweetheart, love, lovey, etc. The same might be said of insults, which we are prohibited from writing here, as we are classified as writing for the general public. Does this, by any chance suggest that in our daily relationships, we are more on the Right than on the Left? The (newspaper) tests does not address such questions, it just purports, on the basis of a few questions, seeming chosen without much criteria, that a person is one or the other. The brief presentation made here should dispel any ideas about how easily such a conclusion can be arrived at by a handful of questions. And after all, most of us already know what are leanings are.
And this writer? Of course, he does not want to say, but we would like to repeat the idea of the necessity of recognizing a central position. At any rate, when we answered quickly, to what we thought the questions were (considering the British-English language bias), the answers were “ideologically” different from what were given after more consideration was given to the answers. He also fears that his time, as well as Cichocka’s, et. al., was wasted, in that on March 6, the web page with her team’s work had only been visited 142 times, and 3 days later, there had been only 9 more views, of which between 3 and 5 were by the present writer. [Eight days later, there were 153 views, which suggests how few this article will get!] Perhaps even among sociologists the research is suspect, if known disadvantages of the questionnaire method are the exclusion of nuanced answers, and unreliable results in general. [Arkin, Colton, 150.]
Ignored Phenomena of Nouns and Adjectives.
Certain types of writing tend to nominalisation. This means that no conclusions can be made about the political leanings of the writer.
“The right to use a noun as an adjective is one of the most useful and jealously guarded rights in the language.” The comment is rather ornate, considering that it comes from a serious book on English usage, but the declaration itself is another example of how usage, or, shall we say the right to a certain usage, should not be employed as an excuse for political labelling.
If liberals use more abstract terms than those on the right, would it not be fair to consider the use of abstract nouns by both groups?
On an almost amusing note, we discover in a now obsolete text, that thee are two adjectives corresponding to “noun”, nominal and nounal, and that neither is acceptable to the author of the work in question, the former because of its many other meanings, and the latter because it is derived from two different languages. We might say the author is a conservative.
We have concluded, perhaps wrongly, that for the validity of the study, the words which would best function are those which have equal meaning as nouns and adjectives. Such words are applied in a social context, by which we include the political sphere. Such is true of most, if not all, adjectives which apply to political leanings and nationalities. It is then possible to conclude, even on the basis of the limited examples that we have seen, that their is a bias in the selection the types of nouns and their corresponding adjectives, e.g., liberal, Liberal, American (adjective), [an] American (noun). The same phenomenon does not apply to the pair abrasive, abrasive, because having an abrasive personality has no relationship to a substance which abrades. Moving a bit further from the real or apparent 100 per cent correspondence, we can consider describing someone in such terms as foolish / fool; creative / genius, hard-working / toiler. That at least one of these words is a rarity does not disqualify it, the examples we have seen on-line also had oddities, at least, in that they would not be commonly found in North America.
We question what the political leaning would be in noun phrases such as “utter fool”, “total genius”, “hard-working factory hand”. At the same time, it should be mentioned that the newspaper articles were using past and present participles as adjectives, when the treatment to be applied might well have been to consider the examples as parts of a perfect or progressive (continuous) verb tense.
Moving still further away from simple pairs of nominals and qualifiers, we may be expected to believe that a political inclination can be surmised from the choice of the following two sentences: “It’s a rock.” “It’s rock-solid.” “This is a metal.” This is metallic.” This writer is inclined to agree, but the examples we have seen – which, for copyright reasons, we do not quote – do not contemplate other than persons.
This Writer, According to the Quizzes
And this writer? Of course, he does not want to say, but we would like to repeat the idea of the necessity of recognizing a central position. At any rate, when we answered quickly, to what we thought the questions were (considering the British-English language bias), the answers were “ideologically” different from what were given after more consideration was given to the answers. He also fears that his time, as well as Cichocka’s, et. al., was wasted, in that on March 6, the web page with her team’s work had only been visited 142 times, and 3 days later, there had been only 9 more views, of which between 3 and 5 were by the present writer. [Eight days later, there were 153 views, which suggests how few this article will get!] Perhaps even among sociologists the research is suspect, if known disadvantages of the questionnaire method are the exclusion of nuanced answers, and unreliable results in general. [Arkin, Colton, 150. ]
March 7 – 10, 2016 © 2016, Paul Karl Moeller
Revised, March 25, 2016
 Aleksandra Cichocka, Michał Bilewicz, John T. Jost, and Natasza Marrouch
 Narjas T Zatat, “Quiz: Can we guess your political allegiances – with three simple questions?”, http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/quiz-can-we-guess-your-political-allegianceswith-three-simple-questions–Zymi5JuhtRe, February 25, 2016, and Boult, Adam, “Can this 30-second test determine whether you’re liberal or conservative?”, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/12173963/Can-this-30-second-test-determine-whether-youre-liberal-or-conservative.html, February 25, 2016, respectively.
 See for examkple the case of Arkansas. http://www.openprimaries.org/states_arkansas The usual case seem to be that of Democrats voting in Republican primaries, see Dell Markey, “Can Independents & Democrats Vote in Republican Primaries? ” http://classroom.synonym.com/can-independents-democrats-vote-republican-primaries-10973.html and “Who votes in the Democratic and Republican Party primaries to determine presidential candidates in the USA?” https://www.quora.com/Who-votes-in-the-Democratic-and-Republican-Party-primaries-to-determine-presidential-candidates-in-the-USA.
 Were the shoes hand-me-downs, the intended recipiente might start a discusión about the size.
 This is mentioned because some languages either have no continuous tense, or often prefer not to use it. Considered under the concept of the imperfective aspect of some languages, we come no closer to accepting the sentence, because once the action is complete, i.e., “mother has said this”, the perfective aspect is in order, which we would not express with a continuous in English. See our article on these aspects.
 “On the Grammar of Politics – or Why Conservatives Prefer Nouns:”
 From the abstract, ibid.
 Ibid., p. 2.
 Leftist bias is seen by the Conservative Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3074267/BBC-pay-price-anti-Tory-bias-writes-LEO-MCKINSTRY.html. Most of the licence fee, though the amount of itseflf is insufficient, does go to the BBC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom “Public purposes” of the BBC include “sustaining civil society”, “promoting education and learning” and “stimulating creativity”: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter.pdf. As a minimum, many economic conservatives would object to the this type of corporation.
 Cichocka, op. cit., p. 5.
 “Online and cafe responders were invited to take part in a prize lottery.” ibid., p. 9,
 Ibid., p. 7.
 Ibid., p. 5.
 Mention of Italy brought to mind a different view of the use of language, precisely, a comment by the Italian-Canadian chair of history during this writer’s university years: said professor typecast the English as being very direct in their writing style, while Scots and Germans get to the point in a convolutionary arguments. Students, then, to please a teacher, would adjust their styles. Would these styles differ much between the written and the oral? Would the pedagogue then have caused a writing style which at some future date have its user incorrectly categorized politically?
 A language such as Arabic is said to have only 3 parts of speech, in comparison to the 8 this writer learnt in primary school. Arguably, the same is true of Biblical Hebrew, although this way of looking at things may be the fault of medieval scholars [scroll to point “e” at the bottom of this link]. To show a similar phenomenon in Hebrew, we take, in this discussion on the expression from Exodus 3:14, I Am Who I Am, Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, אהיה אשר אהיה, that the usual form as explained in this link, in the fifth paragraph, is a non-verbal construction in Hebrew. (It would correspond to contemporary Arabic).Be that as it may, the Arabic for “God is great” is easily translated into Russian, Бог велик, Bog velik, but following European grammar rules, this is just a sentence with subject and predicate. For this reason, the comparison of languages becomes invalid. A similar phenomenon has been seen in some Latin American graffiti, such as, Fulano ladrón – John Doe (is) a thief. Going further to the east, we see that the Chinese only use shì, the equivalent of “to be” optionally, and then, preferably in the kind of sentence the Cichocka study gives as nominal. But we stress, however much the sentences can be compared, the grammar is different.
For futher discusson of the nominal sentence, cf. The Nominal Sentence: The Predicate (Al-Khabar) http://blogs.transparent.com/arabic/the-nominal-sentence-the-predicate-al-khabar/ The question of “noun” sentences is given treatment in F. Corrientes, Gramática Árabe, (Barcelona: Herder, 1988), pp. 68 – 70. How bias can be inserted into the sentence structkure is seen in Michel Neyreneuf, Christine Canamas et Mohammad Bakri, L’arabe d’ajourd’hui en 90 leçon et en 90 jours, (Paris: Librairie Général Française, 1992), p. 34, where it states that its use is with the “nom défini” to which one wishes to draw attention. The structure is better defined as a definite noun followed by an indefinite adjective, cf. J. R. Smart, Arabic, (Sevenoaks: Hodder & Stoughton, 1986), p. 37, where he also mentions similarities in Russian and Hebrew, and that translation into English in the authorised version of the Bible has the required form of the verb “to be” printed in italics, since the word is not in the original text.. For the similar sentence in Chinese, cf. Elizabeth Scurfield, Chinese, (Sevenoaks: Hodder & Stoughton, 1991), p. 7.
 Scofield, supra, last line.
 http://www.measuringu.com/blog/left-side-bias.php, and http://intelligentmeasurement.net/2014/01/14/likert-scale-left-or-right/ are examples [to be edited].
 Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik, A Grrammar of Contemporary English, (Longman, 1972), p. 21 [1.24]
 H. A. Treble, and G. H. Vallins, “Nouns as Adjectives” in An ABC of English Usage, (London: Oxford, 1936).
 Quirk, et. Al, “abstract mass nouns”, p. 132, [4.7]
 “noun”, in H. W. Fowler, A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, (London: Oxford, 1927)
“On the Grammar of Politics – or Why Conservatives Prefer Nouns:” (full and free; full for payment, respectively):
On the Research
Beall, Abigail, “The simple trick that can reveal if you’re a conservative or liberal: Study discovers which words give away political beliefs”,http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3463607/The-simple-trick-reveal-conservative-liberal-Study-discovers-words-away-political-beliefs.html#ixzz42RyTuStc , February 25, 2016.
Boult, Adam, “Can this 30-second test determine whether you’re liberal or conservative?”, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/12173963/Can-this-30-second-test-determine-whether-youre-liberal-or-conservative.html, February 25, 2016
Cichocka, Aleksandra, et. al., “On the Grammar of Politics—or Why Conservatives Prefer Nouns”, Political Psychology, Vol. xx, No. xx, 2016, doi: 10.1111/pops.12327, found at: http://www.academia.edu/21587729/On_the_Grammar_of_Politics_or_Why_Conservatives_Prefer_Nouns,
Matszczyk, Chris, “Are Your Co-Workers Conservative or Liberal? Use This Trick to Find Out”, http://www.inc.com/chris-matyszczyk/this-is-how-you-can-tell-if-your-co-workers-are-right-wing-or-left-wing.html, February 25, 2016
Narjas T Zatat, “Quiz: Can we guess your political allegiances – with three simple questions?”, http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/quiz-can-we-guess-your-political-allegianceswith-three-simple-questions–Zymi5JuhtRe, February 25, 2016
Arabic: Madinah, Arabic Language Course, Lesson 28-1, September 23, 2015. http://www.madinaharabic.com/lesson-28-1.html. Accessed March 7, 2016.
English: —, “Parts of Speech”, http://www.myenglishpages.com/site_php_files/grammar-lesson-parts-of-speech.php. Accessed March 7, 2016.
Hebrew: Waltke, Bruce K. , and O’Connor, Michael Patrick, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, viewed in Google Books, https://books.google.com/books?id=jZlwYGilLW0C&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=parts+of+speech+biblical+hebrew&source=bl&ots=_BiOvCa1od&sig=gHa-nyya6Cg25EoDfSmuGRa4aIE&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiE_Ija1K_LAhUDjJAKHSM7C1oQ6AEIKTAB#v=onepage&q=parts%20of%20speech%20biblical%20hebrew&f=false, Accessed March 8, 2016.
Grossberg, Daniel. “Nominalization: Biblical Hebrew.” Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Edited by: Geoffrey Khan. Brill Online, 2016. Reference. 09 March 2016 <http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-hebrew-language-and-linguistics/nominalization-biblical-hebrew-EHLL_COM_00000332> First appeared online: 2013, Accessed March 8, 2016.
Language of Law: Carrio, Genaro R. Notas Sobre Derecho y Lenguaje. Buenos Aires: Abeledo-Perrot, 1976.
Slavic Languages: See this writer’s article with extensive bibliography, https://paulkarlmoeller.wordpress.com/article/understanding-perfective-and-3pj5r6n3uurvd-12/
Political Links: In order not to show approval of extremist politics, no further “advertising” will be made here. To back up our analysis, the two links already provided are 2 too many.
Bauch, Chelsea. “10 Authors against Adjectives, ” in Flavorwire.com. October 21, 2010. (linked above).
Arkin, Herbert, and Colton, Raymond R. Statistical Methods. New York: College Outline Series. Barnes & Noble, 1956
Downie, N.M., and Heath, R.W., Basic Statistical Methods. New York: Harper and Row, 1959