journal article·2012-02

The many faces of nano in newspaper reporting

Max Boholm, Åsa Boholm

Journal of Nanoparticle Research· Volume 14· Issue 2
Publisher page

Abstract

The morpheme nano in languages such as Swedish and English is a constituent of many words. This article linguistically analyses the meaning potential of nano by focusing on word use in a Swedish newspaper corpus comprising 2,564 articles (1.6 million words) covering a 22-year period (1988–2010). Close to 400 word forms having nano as a constituent have been identified and analyzed. The results suggest that nano covers a broad and heterogeneous conceptual field: (i) as a prefix of the SI system; (ii) in relation to the scientific activities of nanoscience and nanotechnology, including their sub-processes and actors; and (iii) in relation to objects. The identified meanings of nano, besides the standard definition (i.e. ‘billionth part’ in relation to SI units), are ‘operating at the nanometre level’ in relation to activities and their actors and ‘nanometre sized’ and ‘nanotechnological’ in relation to objects; in addition, the less precise and non-technical meaning ‘very small’ is identified. We discuss the implications of the findings for a hypothesis about media influence on public understanding of technology, suggesting that repeated findings in Europe and the USA of little self-reported understanding and knowledge of nanotechnology or nanoscience among the public make sense in light of the polysemy of nano reflected in its broad variety of verbal forms and usages.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Discourse Analysis in Language Studies · Language, Metaphor, and Cognition

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (52)

Show source-provided references
1. Allan S, Anderson A, Petersen A (2010) Framing risk: nanotechnology in the news. J Risk Res 13(1–2):29–4410.1080/13669870903135847 ↗
2. Allwood J (1998) Semantics as meaning determination with semantic–epistemic operations. In: Allwood J, Gärdenfors P (eds) Cognitive semantics: meaning and cognition. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, Philadelphia, pp 1–18
3. Allwood J (2003) Meaning potential and context: some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. In: Cuyckens H, Dirven R, Taylor JR (eds) Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, pp 29–6610.1515/9783110219074.29 ↗
4. Anderson A, Allan S, Petersen A, Wilkinson C (2005) The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Sci Commun 27:200–22010.1177/1075547005281472 ↗
5. Anderson A, Petersen A, Wilkinson C, Allan S (2009) Nanotechnology, risk and communication. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, New York10.1057/9780230234574 ↗
6. Balzani V (2005) Nanoscience and nanotechnology: a personal view of a chemist. Small 1(3):278–28310.1002/smll.200400010 ↗
7. Collins P, Hollo C (2010) English grammar: an introduction. Palgrave Macmillan, London10.1007/978-0-230-36576-6 ↗
8. Cormick C (2009) Why do we need to know what the public thinks about nanotechnology? Nanoethics 3:167–17310.1007/s11569-009-0065-z ↗
9. Crichton M (2002) Prey. HarperCollins, New York
10. Drexler E (1986) Engines of creation: the coming era of nanotechnology. Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City
11. Dudo AD, Choi D-H, Scheufele DA (2011) Food nanotechnology in the news: coverage patterns and thematic emphases during the last decade. Appetite 56(1):78–8910.1016/j.appet.2010.11.143 ↗
12. Entman RM (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun 43(4):51–5810.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x ↗
13. Faber B (2006) Popularizing nanoscience: the public rhetoric of nanotechnology, 1986–1999. Tech Commun Q 15(2):141–16910.1207/s15427625tcq1502_2 ↗
14. Faber B, Mackinnon J, Petroccione M (2005) Media portraits of nanotech in North American written media: 1986–2000. Nanotechnol Law Bus 2(4):248–363
15. Fillmore CJ (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2):222–254
16. Friedman SM, Egolf BP (2005) Nanotechnology: risks and the media. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 24:5–1110.1109/MTAS.2005.1563496 ↗
17. Gaskell G, Eyck TT, Jackson J (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Underst Sci 14:81–9010.1177/0963662505048949 ↗
18. Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis: an essay on the organisation of experience. Pengiun Books, Harmondsworth
19. Gorss J, Lewenstein B (2005) The salience of the small: nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986–2004. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, May 27, New York10.1177/1075547005281532 ↗
20. Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL (eds) Syntax and semantics: speech acts, vol 3. Academic Press, New York, pp 41–5810.1163/9789004368811_003 ↗
21. Halliday MAK (1973) Explorations in the functions of language. Edward Arnold, London
22. Hunston S, Francis G (2000) Pattern grammar: a corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. John Benjamins, Amsterdam10.1075/scl.4 ↗
23. Joachim C (2005) To be nano or not to be nano? Nat Mater 4(2):107–10910.1038/nmat1319 ↗
24. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2008) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4:87–9010.1038/nnano.2008.341 ↗
25. Kjølberg KL (2009) Representations of nanotechnology in Norwegian newspapers: implications for public participation. Nanoethics 3(1):61–7210.1007/s11569-008-0053-8 ↗
26. Laing A (2005) A report on Canadian and American news media coverage of nanotechnology issues. Report from The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/2723/25_canadianandamericannewsmediacoveragenanotechnologyissues.pdf . Accessed 6 October 2011
27. Landau J, Groscurth CR, Wright L, Condit CM (2009) Visualizing nanotechnology: the impact of visual images on lay American audience associations with nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 18(3):325–33710.1177/0963662507080551 ↗
28. Laycock H (2005) Mass nouns, count nouns and non-count nouns. In: Brown K (ed) Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 534–538
29. Lösch A (2006) Anticipating the futures of nanotechnology: visionary images as means of communication. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 18(3/4):393–40910.1080/09537320600777168 ↗
30. Lyons J (1968) Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge10.1017/CBO9781139165570 ↗
31. Matthiessen CMIM (2009) Meaning in the making: meaning potential emerging from acts of meaning. Lang Learn 59(1):206–22910.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00541.x ↗
32. Nerlich B (2008) Powered by imagination: nanobots at the Science Photo Library. Sci Cult 17(3):269–29210.1080/09505430802280743 ↗
33. Neuman WR, Just MR, Cringler AN (1992) Common knowledge: news and the construction of political meaning. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London10.7208/chicago/9780226161174.001.0001 ↗
34. Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Bryant H, Rogers-Hayden T (2009) Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat Nanotechnol 4:95–9810.1038/nnano.2008.362 ↗
35. Priest S, Greenhalgh T, Kramer V (2010) Risk perceptions starting to shift? U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 12:11–2010.1007/s11051-009-9789-5 ↗
36. Recanati F (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
37. Russell B (1923) Vagueness. Australas J Psychol Philos 1:84–9210.1080/00048402308540623 ↗
38. Scheufele DA (1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. J Commun 49(1):103–12210.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x ↗
39. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–66710.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 ↗
40. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Shih T, Dalrymple KE, Ho SS (2008) Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Nanotechnol 4:91–9410.1038/nnano.2008.361 ↗
41. Schmidt Kjaergard R (2010) Making a small country count: nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996–2006. Public Underst Sci 19(1):80–9710.1177/0963662508093090 ↗
42. Schütz H, Wiedemann PM (2008) Faming effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 17:369–37910.1177/0963662506071282 ↗
43. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007) Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27(1):59–6910.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x ↗
44. Siegrist M, Stampfli N, Kastenholz H, Keller C (2008) Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite 51(2):283–29010.1016/j.appet.2008.02.020 ↗
45. Simons J, Zimmer R, Vierboom C, Härlen I, Hertel R, Böl G-F (2009) The slings and arrows of communication on nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 11:1555–157110.1007/s11051-009-9653-7 ↗
46. Sinclair J (1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press, Oxford
47. Sperber D, Wilson D (1995, orig. 1986) Relevance: communication and cognition, 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford
48. Stephens LF (2005) News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Sci Commun 27:175–19910.1177/1075547005281520 ↗
49. Stubbs M (2002) Words and phrases: corpus studies of lexical semantics. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford
50. Te Kulve H (2006) Evolving repertoires: nanotechnology in daily newspapers in the Netherlands. Sci Cult 15(4):367–38210.1080/09505430601022692 ↗
51. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–45810.1126/science.7455683 ↗
52. Weaver DA, Lively E, Bimber B (2009) Searching for a frame: news media tell the story of technological progress, risk, and regulation. Sci Commun 31:139–16610.1177/1075547009340345 ↗