About

Michael Kac is a professor at the University of Minnesota's Department of Philosophy. His research focuses on linguistics, cognitive science, philosophy of language, and philosophy of music. As a faculty member, he contributes to the understanding of language and cognition through his scholarly work, engaging with questions at the intersection of philosophy and science.

Research topics

• Linguistics
• Computer science
• Natural language processing
• Philosophy
• Artificial intelligence

Selected publications

• A nonpsychological realist conception of linguistic rules

  2026-01-15

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding

  I argue here that the study of language independently of considerations of use, mental representation or acquisition – a.k.a. autonomous linguistics – is not only possible but necessary. I do so mainly with a series of cases in point, including the recognition of formal languages and a series of puzzles involving natural language whose solutions are inherently nonpsychological in nature. More positively, I argue that autonomous linguistics is closely akin to codebreaking and conclude the main part of the discussion with a parable putting the lie to the idea that since language is a product of the human mind, which I do not dispute, the only reasons for interest in it must be psychological in nature (which I do dispute). At the request of the editors, I conclude with an autobiographical reminiscence of how I was led to this work by an involvement with the ideas of the dedicatee of this volume.

  PublisherDOI

• A primer for linguistic normativists

  Studies in language companion series · 2019-11-18 · 1 citations

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract A normative domain is a realm of action or thought in which it’s necessary to invoke the concepts of requirement/obligation, permission or prohibition. Closely associated with these is that of correctness . A rule of grammar, as this term is traditionally understood (e.g., the requirement that determiners precede the nouns with which they are associated) is accordingly normative in nature. This chapter explores some of the consequences of this fact, including: the relationship between the notions of rule and constraint; broad- vs. narrow-scope rules; and ascription of different kinds of ill-formedness to ungrammatical examples. Some attention is also given to the critique of grammaticality-based and intuition-grounded linguistic practice advanced by Sampson and Babarczy (2013) , and motivation is offered for a warmer embrace of traditional grammar than is customary among linguists.

  PublisherDOI

• ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

  University of Minnesota Press eBooks · 2018-05-05

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Mark Kac: A Reminiscence

  Antiquitates Mathematicae · 2016-01-27

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Review of Gary Ebbs, Truth and Words

  2012-01-01

  article1st authorCorresponding

• Musical Meaning and Human Values edited by chapin, keith and lawrence kramer

  Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism · 2010-05-01

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Truth and Words

  Analysis · 2010-06-22

  article1st authorCorresponding

  Journal Article Truth and Words Get access Michael Kac Michael Kac University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA kacxx001@umn.edu Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Analysis, Volume 71, Issue 2, April 2011, Pages 380–388, https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anq057 Published: 22 June 2010

  PublisherDOI

• Review of Itkonen (2005): Analogy as Structure and Process

  Studies in Language · 2008-09-12

  article1st authorCorresponding

  Preview this article: Esa Itkonen. 2005. Analogy as Structure and Process, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/sl.32.4.10kac-1.gif

  PublisherDOI

• The semantics and pragmatics of appearance

  Language · 2003-03-01

  article1st authorCorresponding

  The semantics and pragmatics of appearance* Michael B. Kac Introduction Pitt and Katz (2000) propose an account of the semantics of expressions like plastic flower and kosher bacon (which I will here dub oxymoroids), maintaining that a correct analysis requires reference to senses and thus enlisting them in an attack on extensionalism. Without claiming to make a case for extensionalism in general, I nonetheless submit that there is a different and more plausible analysis of oxymoroids on the basis of which their extensions are compositionally determined in the same prosaic way as those of unproblematical cases like plastic spoon and kosher beef, and that reference to senses is unnecessary in accounting for them. The approach I have in mind is partly pragmatic in nature but involves no wild card elements—or at least none that do not have clear analogues in widely accepted treatments of other phenomena—and can be extended in natural ways to cover a variety of additional facts to which Pitt and Katz’s analysis does not apply. 1. Outline of the analysis On the standard analysis of expressions like plastic spoon, the adjective is taken to denote a function which, for some set A ⊆ τ(N), takes the extension of a common noun α to A ∩ ⟦α⟧—where τ(X) represents the semantic type of expressions of syntactic category X. It is for this reason that the adjective in such an expression is termed intersective, alternatively conjunctive. On the analysis of oxymoroids to be offered here, the adjective is intersective in exactly the same way that it is in plastic spoon; consequently, no reference to senses is required to determine the denotation of such an expression. What is distinctive about oxymoroids of the kind so far considered is that the head noun α of the expression is taken to denote a certain superset ((α)) of ⟦α ⟧, which I call a generalized extension (‘g-extension’) of α. For example, in plastic flower qua oxymoroid, plastic denotes what it does in plastic spoon, whereas flower denotes a set containing not only flowers but also objects which, while not flowers, nonetheless resemble them in certain outward respects; the entire phrase, accordingly, denotes the intersection of this larger set with the set of things made of plastic. I will henceforth say that the noun flower in this phrase is (extensionally) generalized. While the tenor of the discussion so far might suggest that it is necessarily the head noun of an oxymoroid that is generalized, there are also oxymoroids in which the modifier undergoes generalization—contrast, for example, glass eye (generalized head) with glass jaw (generalized modifier). 1 Indeed, one of Pitt and Katz’s examples, rubber chicken, is ambiguous between two oxymoroidal readings, of which Pitt and Katz cite only one (on which the expression denotes rubber objects made to resemble chickens); but rubber chicken may also denote (actual) chicken meat with a rubbery taste or consistency (as in the phrase rubber chicken circuit).2 A portion of a larger expression that undergoes extensional generalization will henceforth be called a g-term of that [End Page 189] expression. Since what I have to say about oxymoroids whose heads are g-terms carries over, mutatis mutandis, to ones in which the g-term is the modifier, I limit myself here largely to consideration of the former.3 Model theoretically, there are two ways in which one could conceive of incorporating the notion of g-extension. The first would be to think of an extensional model as an ordered triple 〈D, A1, A2〉, where D is a nonempty set, A1 associates each basic expression of the language with a value of the appropriate type, and A2 associates each such expression with a value of the same type generalized in some way. (For example, if α is a common noun, then A1 (α) ⊆ A2 (α) ⊆ D.) Alternatively, we could suppose that expressions are assigned values relative to a pair of models, 〈D, A1〉 and 〈D, A2〉, where A1 and A2 are related as before. I leave open the question of whether there is a substantive difference between these alternatives, and, if so, which is to be preferred. Two points of clarification; first...

  PublisherDOI

• Places and positions: elements of an intuitive syntax: Papers in Honor of Alexis Manaster-Ramer

  2002-01-01

  article1st authorCorresponding

Frequent coauthors

• Alexis Manaster-Ramer

  3 shared

• Thomas C. Rindflesch

  2 shared

• Tom Rindflesch

  United States National Library of Medicine

  1 shared

• Richard Hudson

  Sanofi (France)

  1 shared

• Duane Olawsky

  Macalester College

  1 shared

• Esa Itkonen

  University of Turku

  1 shared

• Zellig S. Harris

  1 shared

• William C. Rounds

  1 shared