Variable Adaptation of English loanwords in German – a perceptual study

A big question in the field of loan phonology, is that of the extent to which the perception of the speakers of the borrowing language affects the adaptation itself. Past researchers have had varying thoughts about this, ranging from the idea that perception is of utmost importance (Peperkamp, 2003), to the thought that is of very little significance (Uffmann, 2006). One phenomenon in this field that offers us useful insight into such issues is that of variable adaptation, namely when one word or sound is adapted in multiple ways into one language, and this is what I am interested in. I investigate variable adaptation of the English FACE diphthong into German, which does not contain this “phoneme”. The diphthong is adapted sometimes to /ɛ:/ and sometimes to /e:/, and the source of the variability is not lexical, as German dictionaries list both pronunciations as possible options for German speakers. Jax (2011) suggested that the variation may be due to the internal timing of the diphthong’s formant trajectories, and the way this is perceived by German listeners. Another important aspect within this field that I address is that of the methodology used in studying loan phonology. Generally, in past studies, the methods used have differed a lot based on whether researchers have been approaching the issue from a phonological of a phonetic viewpoint. For instance, the level of bilingualism that the subjects who are tested possess varies greatly. By taking methods generally used to measure the perception of an L2, such as those used by Boersma & Escudero (2002, 2004) and Iverson & Evans (2007), I am able to control for more variables, enabling me to argue that loan word adaptation can neither be treated as an entirely phonetic nor an entirely phonological process

Co-producing a physical activity intervention with and for people with severe mental ill health – the spaces story

SPACES (Supporting Physical Activity through Co-production in people with Severe Mental Illness) is a study which aims to develop an intervention to increase physical activity created with and for people with severe mental ill health (SMI), their carers and professionals involved in physical activity and/or severe mental ill health. People with SMI are less physically active than the general population and have an increased likelihood of experiencing long-term physical health conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, diabetes and obesity. The SPACES team employed a comprehensive process of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) work embedded within a co-production strategy. Researchers worked together from the point of inception with people with lived experience, two of whom became co-applicants, to design and carry out the intervention development stage of the study. This included PPIE work and an iterative process of focus groups and interviews with various stakeholders and a consensus group made up of multiple stakeholders with lived, caring and professional experience. Here, we describe the co-production model we used, the benefits, challenges, achievements and areas for learning and improvement. We offer co-production principles and practical strategy, which we hope will be used, modified, personalised and built on by others. We also offer the idea that laying out the co-production strategy to be employed prior to a study commencing and then comparing how that strategy was or was not met could be a step towards creating more accountability and academic rigour in co-production

Supporting physical activity through co-production in people with severe mental ill health (SPACES): protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

Background Severe mental ill health (SMI) includes schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and schizoaffective disorder and is associated with premature deaths when compared to people without SMI. Over 70% of those deaths are attributed to preventable health conditions, which have the potential to be positively affected by the adoption of healthy behaviours, such as physical activity. People with SMI are generally less active than those without and face unique barriers to being physically active. Physical activity interventions for those with SMI demonstrate promise, however, there are important questions remaining about the potential feasibility and acceptability of a physical activity intervention embedded within existing NHS pathways. Method This is a two-arm multi-site randomised controlled feasibility trial, assessing the feasibility and acceptability of a co-produced physical activity intervention for a full-scale trial across geographically dispersed NHS mental health trusts in England. Participants will be randomly allocated via block, 1:1 randomisation, into either the intervention arm or the usual care arm. The usual care arm will continue to receive usual care throughout the trial, whilst the intervention arm will receive usual care plus the offer of a weekly, 18-week, physical activity intervention comprising walking and indoor activity sessions and community taster sessions. Another main component of the intervention includes one-to-one support. The primary outcome is to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and to scale it up to a full-scale trial, using a short proforma provided to all intervention participants at follow-up, qualitative interviews with approximately 15 intervention participants and 5 interventions delivery staff, and data on intervention uptake, attendance, and attrition. Usual care data will also include recruitment and follow-up retention. Secondary outcome measures include physical activity and sedentary behaviours, body mass index, depression, anxiety, health-related quality of life, healthcare resource use, and adverse events. Outcome measures will be taken at baseline, three, and six-months post randomisation. Discussion This study will determine if the physical activity intervention is feasible and acceptable to both participants receiving the intervention and NHS staff who deliver it. Results will inform the design of a larger randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical and cost effectiveness of the intervention. Trial registration ISRCTN: ISRCTN83877229. Registered on 09.09.2022

Supporting physical activity through co‑production in people with severe mental ill health (SPACES): protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial

BACKGROUND: Severe mental ill health (SMI) includes schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and schizoaffective disorder and is associated with premature deaths when compared to people without SMI. Over 70% of those deaths are attributed to preventable health conditions, which have the potential to be positively affected by the adoption of healthy behaviours, such as physical activity. People with SMI are generally less active than those without and face unique barriers to being physically active. Physical activity interventions for those with SMI demonstrate promise, however, there are important questions remaining about the potential feasibility and acceptability of a physical activity intervention embedded within existing NHS pathways.METHOD: This is a two-arm multi-site randomised controlled feasibility trial, assessing the feasibility and acceptability of a co-produced physical activity intervention for a full-scale trial across geographically dispersed NHS mental health trusts in England. Participants will be randomly allocated via block, 1:1 randomisation, into either the intervention arm or the usual care arm. The usual care arm will continue to receive usual care throughout the trial, whilst the intervention arm will receive usual care plus the offer of a weekly, 18-week, physical activity intervention comprising walking and indoor activity sessions and community taster sessions. Another main component of the intervention includes one-to-one support. The primary outcome is to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and to scale it up to a full-scale trial, using a short proforma provided to all intervention participants at follow-up, qualitative interviews with approximately 15 intervention participants and 5 interventions delivery staff, and data on intervention uptake, attendance, and attrition. Usual care data will also include recruitment and follow-up retention. Secondary outcome measures include physical activity and sedentary behaviours, body mass index, depression, anxiety, health-related quality of life, healthcare resource use, and adverse events. Outcome measures will be taken at baseline, three, and six-months post randomisation.DISCUSSION: This study will determine if the physical activity intervention is feasible and acceptable to both participants receiving the intervention and NHS staff who deliver it. Results will inform the design of a larger randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical and cost effectiveness of the intervention.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN83877229. Registered on 09.09.2022.</p