Dept. Social Pharmacy and Pharmacoepidemiology, Groningen Institute for Drug Studies, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, The Netherlands.
The working group Social Pharmacy and Pharmacoepidemiology performs fundamental and applied research on epidemiological and medical literature databases in order to determine effectiveness/side-effects profiles of drugs. A post-doc is asked for to participate in the program to develop computer text analysis and pattern recognition techniques for the extraction of (side)effect profiles of drugs from pharmaceutical and medical electronic literature databases: (1) as a source of information for finding new leads in innovative drug research; and (2) as a new way of determining benefit-risk profiles of drugs. A PhD-student is assigned to this program as well.
A computer linguist or computer scientist, who has completed a PhD-project with expertise in corpus linguistics, mathematical linguistics or intelligent information retrieval; interest in pharmaceutical sciences and innovative drug research; expertise in data mining or pattern recognition methods is desired.
The salary is on the basis of ministry guidelines at the minimum Dfl. 3844,- and at the maximum Dfl. f. 7.125,- (schaal 10/11 RWOO) bruto pro month, dependent on education and experience. The working group Social Pharmacy and Pharmacoepidemiology is part of the Dutch School 'Groningen-Utrecht Institute for Drug Exploration' (GUIDE), acknowledged by the Royal Dutch Academy of the Sciences. The appointment is for two years. Information on this project: Prof.dr. R. Vos, email: email@example.com; tel. +31.50.3633331/3633272; fax. +31.50.3633311. Reactions a.s.a.p., and preferably before July 1st, 1997.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Weeber http://www.farm.rug.nl/marc/home.html Groningen University Centre for Pharmacy firstname.lastname@example.org Social Pharmacy and Pharmacoepidemiology tel: +31 50 3637571 ___ A. Deusinglaan 2 fax: +31 50 3633311 | 9713 AW Groningen, The Netherlands - --------------------0-------------------------------------------
Announcing the publication of a new sociolinguistics journal:
Working Papers in Discourse Studies: Language, Gender, and Culture
The format of this semi-annual journal has a dual focus. The firs issue each year will be devoted to issues of language, gender, and culture; the second issue will address topics in discourse analysis. The journal is referreed by the editors, by a review board, and by the Editor in Chief, Dr. Lioba Moshi. The papers are written by graduate students, and the journal is produced solely by graduate students as well. Following is the table of contents of the first issue:
Frank Bramlett. "The concept of the self and the lexicon: Language in and about gay communities."
Anne Marie Hamilton. "Politeness disparity: The role of parents in the transmission of gender communication stereotypes."
Katherine Montwieler. "Constructing womanhood in contemporary American magazines."
E. Frances Reese. "Language, Gender, and Power."
Carol Spurgeon. "Strategies for increasing girls' knowledge and options."
Seretha D. Williams. "Linking the individual to the voice of the community: Metaphors and images in black women's narratives."
For more information about this journal, please email the editors: Anne Marie Hamilton [email@example.com] or Frank Bramle [firstname.lastname@example.org]. Or contact us via snail-mail at the University of Georgia Linguistics Program, Park Hall, Athens, Georgia, 30602.
Frank Bramlett Linguistics Program email@example.com http://www.linguistics.uga.edu
The revival of the Shor literaly language. Irina Nevskaya, Mainz. Summary
The article is devoted to the present-day sociolinguistic situation in Mountain Shoriya (Russia, the South of Western Siberia, the Kemerovo Region). The indigenous population of Mountain Shoriya are the Shors who speak one of the Siberian Turkic languages. The Shor language has survived in spite of unfavourable circumstances. Until very recently, it was neither written nor taught at school for half a century. At present, the Shors try to restore social functions to the language. The Turcological traditions at the Novokuznetsk State Pedagogical Institute have facilitated (and even instigated) the revival of the Shor literary language.
The article touches upon the history of literary Shor and of Shor language research in Novokuznetsk, and analyzes recen developments in Shoriya: the revival of Shor language school teaching, and of written Shor. Special attention is paid to problems facing Shor Turcologists who were providing the revival process with scientific back-up. The article will be fully published in one of the next issues of the journal Turkic Languages Here we present some extracts of it.
General information The Shors are one of the minor indigenous Turkic peoples of Siberia. In the former USSR there were slightly over 16,000 Shors. 12,585 of them, according to the cenSuS of 1989, lived in Kuzbass (the Kemerovo Region), in the south of Western Siberia [Itogi 1989,42]. ..
The Shors inhabit Mountain Shoriya, the northern part of the Sayan-Altay mountain region. The ethnonym was introduced by the academician V. V. Radlov at the end of the nineteenth century. The ethnonym, which came to be used officially, was originally the name of one of the Turkic family clans or tribes (sooks) who spoke rather similar Turkic dialects. The Turks of Altay also used the terrn 'Shor' for the Turkic-speaking population of the Kondoma (Shor lfondumJ, Mrassu (Shor Pras) and Tom (Shor Tom) river basins. At that time, this population did not have a general native name. As the official and native name oftthis ethnos, the ethnonym spread in the mid-1^30's, during the beginning of the national cansolidation of the Turkic Sayan-Altay ethnic groups.
The ethnic group formed from various Turkic and non-Turkic sources. The ethnonym 'aba', the name of one of TOlax sooks, is encountered in Chinese sources dating from 603 [Pritsak 1959, 630]. The Shors are considered to be turkicized Ob-Ugrians: linguistic, ethnographic and anthropological research shows thz presence of an Ob-Ugric substratum in the ethnos: In the toponymy of Shoriya there are a lot of Ket names (e.g. the river names ending in *zas/+sas), indicating that the region was inhabited earlier by the Kets.
Many questions of Shor ethnic history have not yet been solved. As a separate nation with selfidentification and national sentiment, it formed within the Turkic-speaking population of this region during the last three centuries. The Shor ethnologis Dr. Valery Kimeev delineates 3 periods of the ethnos history [Kimeev 1994, 4 - 6].
1. The formation of territorial ethnic groups of the Shors within the administrative ethnic territory (Russian Kuzneckij uezd), from the beginning of the seventeenth until the beginning of the twentieth century.
2. National and cultural consolidation in the framework of the autonomous national district (Cor/lo-swo/ skij nacional'nyj / ajon), 1926 - 1939. At that time, the processes of national development were very intensive. The most important contributing factors were the development of the literary language, school instruction in Shor and the spreading of literacy among the Shor population.
3. From the early 1940's until very recently, the Shor nation in the conditions of active spreading of the dominant Russian culture. Within these years the Shors lost their literary language and were at the brink of full assimilation.
Socio-linguistic situation in Shordya in the late 1980's The Shor language has survived despite unfavourable circumstances. The fast industrial development of the area in the twentieth century almost destroyed the traditional Shor way of life and had a profound influence on the area. The mass inflow of mainly Russian speaking migrants initiated assimilation processes which threatened not only the Shor language but also the very existence of the Shor nation.
Beginning in the 1950's, the following new economic and social factors emerged:
Small farms were merged, and many Shor villages disappeared; people, in search of work, had to move to cities (where the processes of assimilation moved even faster); the rural population was reduced, the urban population in MountainShoriya grew;schools in small Shor villages were closed; Shor boarding schools were opened (these were primary and secondary educational establishments in big villages and industrial centers where Shor children lived apart from their families during the academic year and were instructed in Russian).
As a result, by the end of the 1980's, Shor came to have a lower social status it was not a written language, nor a language of school education. Furthermore, its transmission to younger generations had almost stopped, and the number of speakers had dramatically diminished. The language competence of speakers was reduced, especially of urban Shors (only 3 % of urban Shors could speak Shor fluently in 1986 versus 20.1 % in 1976), while their competence in Russian increased. In 1989 only 59.4% of the Shors considered Shor to be their mother tongue, versus 76.6% in 1970. The number of Shors who considered Russian to be their mother tongue increased from 24.4% up to 39.1% [Itogi, 1989, 42].
We see that people preferred to give up their mother tongue. The history of the Shor literary language is important for the analysis of the factors which led to this situation.
General information on the history of the Shor litera/y language Shor could be called one of the "oppressed languages" of the former USSR. Within the twentieth century alone, the Shor language lost its literary tradition twice.
The first time was just after the October Revolution in Russia, when the church schools founded by the Altay missionaries were closed.
The Altay missionaries preached in the native languages of Siberia's aborigines. They published books in indigenous languages of the Siberian people, founded primary, secondary schools, and religious tertiary schools where they trained national priests and teachers for Shor schools.
One of the first primary schools in Shoriya was opened in the village of Kuzedeevo by the wellknown missionary and linguis V. 1. Verbitsky who taught at this school. By the time of the October Revolution there were schools in all the larger villages. In the northern part of Shoriya, about 40 % of the population was literate. Shor was the language of school teaching, written communication, literature. The Shor literature of the time was sparse; there were only Shor translations of religious literature, and original works. After 1917, with the outbreak of the Revolution and Civil War, all schools were closed, and hence the literary tradition was interrupted.
In 1927 the Shor national district was formed. Though the district did not exist long (it was annulled in 1939), this was an important period for the development of the Shortliterary language. I was taught at schools; a considerable number of books in Shor were published (more th,an 150 titles) and the language, folklore and ethnology of the Shors were studied intensively.
However, the tragic events of 1937-45 had a devastating effec on the culture of the Shors. In 1942, the last issue of the Shor language newspaper
"Kyzl Sor" ('Red Shoriya') was published, and all the Shor schools closed. FrQm this time on, the Shor language was no longer written or taught at schools for half a century. The sphere of its functioning was minimal: it was only used at home for everyday topics. All other cultural needs were met by Russian, which was the language of education, of literary works, of the mass media, as well as of administrative, political, and economic relations. During this period, several generations of urban Shors grew up with at best minimal competence in Shor.
At present, history gives the Shor language a chance (probably the last one) to become a literary language. The active growth of Shor national sentiment and political activity, their interest in the national culture and language, and changes in the country as a whole can contribute to this.
The revival of literary Shor began with the publishing of textbooks of Shor, the training of Shor language teachers, and the teaching of Shor at schools and in Shor language circles.
The revival of teaching Shor at schools In 1988, a Chair of the Shor Language and Literature was created at the Novokuznetsk State Pedagogical Institute (NGPI). The first head was Prof. Andrey Chudoyakov. The same year a Shor department was established in the Faculty of Philology and teacher training in Shor language and literature began. A year later, teachers of different subjects who were Shors themselves began to teach Shor in a number of schools. They were graduates of a 2-year course of training leaders for Shor language circles. The course was organized in Novokuznetsk by Dr. Alisa Esipova. The Shor alphabet book and textbooks for the primary years were written by Dr. Nadezhda Kurpeshko (Kemerovo) and members of the Department. In 1994, the first graduates of the national department (5 people) began to work at schools in the Kemerovo Region. At present, about 20 teachers of Shor work at schools in the Tashtagol and Mezhdurechensk districts of Mountain Shoriya, both in cities and villages. Some schools which were closed 10-30 years ago resumed teaching. Some schools were rebuilt.
Turcology in Novokuznetsk The revival process was facilitated (or, perhaps, even instigated) by Turcological traditions at the Novokuznetsk State Pedagogical Institute.
During the 50 crucial years of Shor language history, the collecting, compiling and describing of all still available material has not stopped. The Shor language research has been carried ou mainly by university foreign-language teachers at the Novokuznetsk State Pedagogical Institute.
When in late eighties we witnessed the uprise of Shor national sentiment and the desire to restore social functions to the language, there had already been qualified people (among them also Shors) who could cope with this task.
Initially, the most important task facing such linguists was to provide the revival process with scientific back-up: to create a modern orthography for Shor, to choose a standard dialect, and to work out literary norms.
Patruseva, G. M. 1994. Sovremennye etniceskie processy u sorcev. In: Kimeev, V. M. & Lavrent'eva, L. A. & Tokmasev, J. K. & Sogrina, N. a. & Bobrov, V. V. & Nevskaja, I. A. & Tivjakov, S. D. (eds.) 1994. Sorskij sbornik. Vypusk 1. Kemerovo: Kem. GU. 216-222.
Pritsak, O. 1959. Das Schorische. In: Deny, Jean & Scheel, Helmuth & Togan, Zeki Validi (eds). Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta. 1. Wiesbaden: Steiner. 598-640.
Dr. Irina A. Nevskaya (Novokuznetsk, Russia) currently has a scholarship from the Conference of the German Academy of Sciences. She is working at the research project entitled Converb clauses in Shor under the guidance of Prof. Dr. Lars Johanson. She will stay at Mainz University at the Institute of Oriental Studies until July 1997. For those
interested in Siberian Turkic languages her address