Background: Nurses in geriatric care are exposed to various burdens in the workplace that result in high stress levels. The perceived stress may result in a lack of professional caring and burnout. Objectives: The study aim was to identify work-related and personal factors that determine stress levels to design tailored interventions. Research design: cross-sectional study. Subjects: N = 195 geriatric nursing staff members. Measures: The survey included validated questionnaires (Trier Inventory for Chronic Stress (TICS), Health Survey Short form 12 (SF-12), Nordic Questionnaire) to identify work-related burdens, resulting stress levels and work-related behavior (AVEM). According to the limits of the Screening Subscale for chronic stress (SSCS) of the TICS, nurses were classified as stressed or non-stressed. With four-step regression analysis, main predictors for the stress level were identified. Results: The analysis revealed body postures, handling heavy loads, time pressure, deadlines and pressure to perform as the main burdens of the participants. Chronically stressed nurses showed different work patterns in comparison to nurses with lower stress levels. The regression analysis showed significance for the models including the work-related patterns and resilience aspects (step three (F (3.42) = 4.168; p = 0.010) and four (F (7.35) = 4.194; p = 0.002). Pattern B was a main factor for determining stress. The stress level determined the perceived burdens. Conclusions: Experiencing and managing stressors depends on the individual’s perception, while coping patterns—especially pattern B—can be decisive. The tailored interventions to reduce stress in geriatric nurses should focus on personal patterns.

This paper examines variation and change in the adjectives used to express “highly positive evaluation” in the varieties of English spoken in Toronto, Canada, and York, England. Building on earlier work on another semantic field, “strangeness,” we analyze over 4800 tokens and thirty-four different types, as in “That’s great” and “She’s awesome.” Our results show both similarities and differences between these two semantic fields. While individual forms in both fields tend to be popular for a long time, many forms fall in and out of favor. In the case of adjectives of highly positive evaluation, the adjectival set is particularly rich. Distributional analysis and statistical modeling of constraints on the major forms and their underlying social and linguistic correlates reveals that these changes are not progressing in parallel across varieties of English. There are robust linguistic patterns that suggest a systemic underlying explanation. New additions to this field arise in predicative position and as stand-alones, and in a later stage extend to attributive position. Finally, consistent with earlier findings on adjectives and (intensifying) adverbs, there are notable links to social trends and popular culture, affirming the link between open class categories and their sociolinguistic embedding.

Macaulay and Brice (1997:798) surveyed example sentences in eleven syntax textbooks published from 1969-1994 and found that virtually all of the authors 'favor male-gendered NPs as subjects and agents, and regularly stereotype both genders'. In this article, we address the question of whether constructed example sentences in more recent textbooks show similar gender bias. We present an analysis of six syntax textbooks published from 2005-2017, from which we randomly sampled 200 example sentences each. We find that the gender skew and stereotypes reported in 1997 are still present today. Male-gendered arguments are almost twice as frequent as female-gendered ones, and more likely to occur as subjects and agents. In addition, example sentences often perpetuate gender stereotypes. We discuss some broader implications and potential interventions to prevent the implicit perpetuation of gender biases in linguistic materials.*

Macaulay and Brice (1997:798) surveyed example sentences in eleven syntax textbooks published from 1969-1994 and found that virtually all of the authors 'favor male-gendered NPs as subjects and agents, and regularly stereotype both genders'. In this article, we address the question of whether constructed example sentences in more recent textbooks show similar gender bias. We present an analysis of six syntax textbooks published from 2005-2017, from which we randomly sampled 200 example sentences each. We find that the gender skew and stereotypes reported in 1997 are still present today. Male-gendered arguments are almost twice as frequent as female-gendered ones, and more likely to occur as subjects and agents. In addition, example sentences often perpetuate gender stereotypes. We discuss some broader implications and potential interventions to prevent the implicit perpetuation of gender biases in linguistic materials.*

Previous work has shown that stance—the way speakers position themselves with respect to what they are talking about and who they are talking to—provides powerful insights into why speakers choose certain linguistic variants, beyond correlations with macro-social categories such as gender, ethnicity, and social class. However, as stancetaking moves are highly context-dependent, they have rarely been explored quantitatively, making the observed variable patterns difficult to generalize. This article seeks to contribute to this methodological gap by proposing a formal guide to coding stance and demonstrating how it can be operationalized quantitatively. Drawing on a corpus of eight individuals, self-recorded in three situations with varying levels of social distance, we apply this method to variation between English complementizers that and zero (i.e. no overt complementizer), providing a replicable and theoretically grounded protocol that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative analyses in a variationist sociolinguistic study. (Stance, complementizers, that, English)*