"categorical language" is a correct and usable phrase in written English.
You can use it to describe language that is unequivocal and expresses something in an absolute, definite manner. For example, "She used categorical language when she said the policy would not be changed."
Kerry's difficulty, both politically and intellectually, may be stated thus: How do you find the categorical language you need to criticize an opponent who is himself intoxicated with categorical language and categorical thinking?
That's a pity in this case, because it might have sparked a discussion about whether Luttwak's categorical language was misleading, at best.
The Democratic candidate is, as we all know by now, so agonizingly uncomfortable with categorical language that he starts equivocating in the middle of an otherwise declarative sentence.
Traub writes that John Kerry is "so agonizingly uncomfortable with categorical language that he starts equivocating in the middle of an otherwise declarative sentence" and refers to Kerry's "nuancifications".
But in repeating its categorical language (critics are dismissed regularly as "totally wrong" and "fundamentally incorrect") and refusing to acknowledge that the movement had any blind spots at all, Israel perpetuates a tradition as doctrinaire as any faith.
It links English narratives to numbers using a categorical language framework with mathematical mappings taking the place of conjunctions and numbers.
(Note also that Richard Routley (1975) has shown that every logic based on a λ-categorical language has a sound and complete bivalent possible worlds semantics).
In addition to education, marital status and nationality all models included the categorical variables language region, religion, and degree of urbanization of the place of residence.
In sum, previous suggestions for language specialization in the human brain have focused mainly on categorical speech perception, speech production, processing of serial order, and syntactic processing [1].
Therefore, we would like to argue that rather than a discrete categorical classification of languages into tone languages and non-tone languages, a more fine-grained account is needed [48] that takes into account the extent to which (in this case) pitch information is actually used to distinguish phonological categories in processing.
Therefore it seemed obvious to Humboldt that a categorical separation between language philosophy and empirical linguistics as it developed during the nineteenth century and still exists today, was unacceptable.
