La presidencia española de la Unión Europea: el Consejo Europeo de Barcelona y el Consejo Europeo de Sevilla

El autor, en los dos documentos que aquí se presentan, hace un balance de lo que han supuesto los Consejos Europeos de Barcelona y Sevilla para la Unión Europea, sobre los que ha escrito dos libros, publicados por Eurocomment Foundation

La presidencia griega

La Presidencia de la Unión ha adquirido cada vez más importancia en los últimos diez o quince años. El gobierno al que toca ejercer la Presidencia de la UE, sin embargo, está bien lejos de disfrutar de libertad de acción, y en el caso de que se crea que la tiene y pretenda ejercerla suele estar abocado a un desastre. El programa legislativo para el que asume la responsabilidad durante su mandato de seis meses está en gran medida predeterminado. Incluso los eventos políticos de mayor relevancia, como las dos o más reuniones del Consejo Europeo que tiene que organizar cada Presidencia, tienden a estar dominados por asuntos que estaban en la agenda desde hace muchísimo tiempo. La Presidencia de turno durante el primer semestre del año, por ejemplo, sabe que le tocará presidir la revisión anual del Consejo Europeo de la política social y económica de la UE en marzo. Otras reuniones de los jefes de Estado y de gobierno pueden parecer algo menos “precocinadas”. Muchos de los informes que conforman la espina dorsal de su agenda seguramente han sido encargados con meses e incluso con años de antelación

Having Linguistic Rules and Knowing Linguistic Facts

\u27Knowledge\u27 doesn\u27t correctly describe our relation to linguistic rules. It is too thick a notion (for example, we don\u27t believe linguistic rules). On the other hand, \u27cognize\u27, without further elaboration, is too thin a notion, which is to say that it is too thin to play a role in a competence theory. One advantage of the term \u27knowledge\u27-and presumably Chomsky\u27s original motivation for using it-is that knowledge would play the right kind of role in a competence theory: Our competence would consist in a body of knowledge which we have and which we may or may not act upon-our performance need not conform to the linguistic rules that we know. Is there a way out of the dilemma? I\u27m going to make the case that the best way to talk about grammatical rules is simply to say that we have them. That doesn\u27t sound very deep, I know, but saying that we have individual rules leaves room for individual norm guidance in a way that \u27cognize\u27 does not. Saying we have a rule like subjacency is also thicker than merely saying we cognize it. Saying I have such a rule invites the interpretation that it is a rule for me-that I am normatively guided by it. The competence theory thus becomes a theory of the rules that we have. Whether we follow those rules is another matter entirely

Searching for the Past, Writing for the Present: Charles Ryle Fay and Newfoundland’s Contested Past

In the autumn of 1953 the Cambridge economic historian, C.R. Fay, presented a series of lectures at Memorial University based on his tours of the province. As a collector of all things Newfoundland and an observer of island’s shifting place within empire, Fay laid the foundation for a cultural renaissance in Newfoundland studies. Ultimately, however, the scope of his project, his personal bias, and indifference to the island’s historiography undermined his research and his significance as a historian of Newfoundland. Résumé À l’automne de 1953, C.R. Fay, historien de l’économie de Cambridge, a présenté une série d’exposés à la Memorial University inspirés de ses voyages dans la province. Collectionneur de tout ce qui était de Terre-Neuve et observateur de la place changeante de l’île au sein de l’empire, Fay a posé les fondements d’une renaissance culturelle en études terre-neuviennes. Cependant, ses recherches et son importance en tant que spécialiste de l’histoire de Terre-Neuve ont été minées, en fin de compte, par l’étendue de son projet, son parti pris personnel et son indifférence envers l’historiographie de l’île

Saints and Sinners: Popular Myth and the Study of the Personalities of the Antigonish Movement

The narrative of the St. Francis Xavier University Extension Department has long been styled as an exchange between “saints and sinners.” Beginning in the 1930s, journalists, writers, and historians wrote of the leading saint, Fr. James J. Tompkins, and his struggle against the foremost sinner, Archbishop James Morrison, which resulted in the priest’s exile to Canso in 1922 and ultimate redemption as the spiritual father of Antigonish Movement.  Exploring aspects of the Extension story, this article examines the “saints and sinners” myth and illustrates the effect that it has had on the history of the movement.L’histoire du Service d’éducation permanente de la St. Francis Xavier University a longtemps été dépeinte comme un échange entre « saints et pécheurs ». À compter des années 1930, des journalistes, des écrivains et des historiens ont écrit à propos du chef de file parmi les saints, le frère James T. Tompkins, et de sa lutte contre le plus grand des pécheurs, l’archevêque James Morrison, qui conduisit à l’exil du prêtre à Canso en 1922 et à sa rédemption ultérieure en tant que père spirituel du mouvement d’Antigonish. Explorant divers aspects de l’histoire de l’éducation permanente, cet article examine le mythe « des saints et des pécheurs » et illustre l’effet qu’il a eu sur l’histoire du mouvement

The Syntax of Prominence

The standard view on discourse pronoun resolution is that determining the antecedents of discourse pronouns is typically a function of extralinguistic reasoning. In contrast, Stojnić (2021) argues that pronoun resolution is a function of linguistic facts. In this article we offer what we take to be a friendly amendment to the technical aspects of Stojnić’s proposal. Our point of departure will be with our idea that prominence is not determined by the position of the candidate antecedent within a stack, but rather by its position within standard syntactic tree structures, extended to include discourse-level trees. Our proposal leans on the notion of p-scope, a proof-theoretic accessibility relation among tree nodes which we develop in Ludlow and Živanović (2022), and the notion of closeness built on standard accounts of syntactic locality. The key idea is that a pronoun’s antecedent resolves to its closest p-scoper; specifically, p-scope determines the potential antecedents, and the closeness relation orders these by prominence. Coherence relations, which we provisionally represent as syntactic heads, can be then seen as affecting accessibility and prominence indirectly, in virtue of their position in traditional LF tree structures

The Myth of Human Language

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/62459/1/Ludlow2005_The_Myth_of_Human_Language.pd