The many faces of nano in newspaper reporting

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.

[1]  Jens Allwood,et al.  MEANING POTENTIALS AND CONTEXT : SOME CONSEQUENCES FOR THE ANALYSIS OF VARIATION IN MEANING , 2003 .

[2]  Jens Allwood,et al.  Semantics as Meaning Determination with Semantic-Epistemic Operations , 1999 .

[3]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[4]  Rikke Schmidt Kjærgaard.  Making a small country count: nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to 2006 , 2010 .

[5]  H. Kastenholz,et al.  Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards , 2007, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  Lowndes F. Stephens.  News Narratives about Nano S&T in Major U.S. and Non-U.S. Newspapers , 2005 .

[7]  Barbara Herr Harthorn,et al.  Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. , 2009, Nature nanotechnology.

[8]  H. Kulve.  Evolving Repertoires: Nanotechnology in Daily Newspapers in the Netherlands , 2006 .

[9]  Kajsa E. Dalrymple,et al.  Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. , 2009, Nature nanotechnology.

[10]  John Sinclair,et al.  Corpus, Concordance, Collocation , 1991 .

[11]  R. Hertel,et al.  The slings and arrows of communication on nanotechnology , 2009, Journal of nanoparticle research : an interdisciplinary forum for nanoscale science and technology.

[12]  P. Gärdenfors,et al.  Cognitive semantics : meaning and cognition , 1999 .

[13]  Jonathan Jackson,et al.  Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States , 2005 .

[14]  Sharon M. Friedman,et al.  Nanotechnology: risks and the media , 2005, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine.

[15]  E. Goffman.  Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience , 1974 .

[16]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies , 2005 .

[17]  Bruce Bimber,et al.  Searching for a Frame , 2009 .

[18]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Framing as a theory of media effects , 1999 .

[19]  Michael Halliday,et al.  Explorations in the functions of language , 1973 .

[20]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Food nanotechnology in the news. Coverage patterns and thematic emphases during the last decade , 2011, Appetite.

[21]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging , 2008, Appetite.

[22]  Stuart Allan,et al.  Nanotechnology, Risk and Communication , 2009 .

[23]  Brigitte Nerlich,et al.  Powered by Imagination: Nanobots at the Science Photo Library , 2008 .

[24]  Andreas Lösch,et al.  Anticipating the futures of nanotechnology: Visionary images as means of communication , 2006, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[25]  Vincenzo Balzani,et al.  Nanoscience and nanotechnology: a personal view of a chemist. , 2005, Small.

[26]  Robert M. Entman,et al.  Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm , 1993 .

[27]  D. Noël.  Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. By SUSAN HUNSTON and GILL FRANCIS (Studies in corpus linguistics 4.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2000 , 2002 .

[28]  Brenton D. Faber.  Popularizing Nanoscience: The Public Rhetoric of Nanotechnology, 1986–1999 , 2006 .

[29]  Peter Collins,et al.  English grammar : an introduction , 2000 .

[30]  Alison Anderson,et al.  Framing risk: nanotechnologies in the news , 2010 .

[31]  Ann N. Crigler,et al.  Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning. , 1993 .

[32]  Walt Detmar Meurers,et al.  Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics , 2006 .

[33]  Celeste M. Condit,et al.  Visualizing nanotechnology: the impact of visual images on lay American audience associations with nanotechnology , 2009 .

[34]  Siobhan Chapman.  Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[35]  Introduction—Nanotechnology and the Public , 2005 .

[36]  C. Cormick.  Why Do We Need to Know What the Public Thinks about Nanotechnology? , 2009, Nanoethics.

[37]  Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen,et al.  Meaning in the Making: Meaning Potential Emerging From Acts of Meaning , 2009 .

[38]  H. Laycock.  Mass nouns, Count nouns and Non-count nouns , 2005 .

[39]  K. Eric Drexler,et al.  Engines of Creation: the Coming Era of Nanotechnology , 1986 .

[40]  Hubert Cuyckens,et al.  Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics , 2003 .

[41]  S. Ariel,et al.  Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. , 1968 .

[42]  D. Sperber,et al.  Relevance: Communication and Cognition , 1989 .

[43]  Kamilla Lein Kjølberg,et al.  Representations of Nanotechnology in Norwegian Newspapers — Implications for Public Participation , 2009 .

[44]  François Recanati,et al.  1 Literal Meaning , 2006 .

[45]  C. Goddard.  Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics , 2006 .

[46]  Geoffrey L. Cohen,et al.  Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. , 2009, Nature nanotechnology.

[47]  S. Priest,et al.  Risk perceptions starting to shift? U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology , 2009, Journal of nanoparticle research : an interdisciplinary forum for nanoscale science and technology.

[48]  Charles J. Fillmore,et al.  Frames and the semantics of understanding , 1985 .

[49]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  The Salience of Small: Nanotechnology Coverage in the American Press, 1986-2004 , 2010 .

[50]  Susan Hunston,et al.  Book Reviews: Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English , 2000, CL.

[51]  Alison Anderson,et al.  The Framing of Nanotechnologies in the British Newspaper Press , 2005 .

[52]  Christian Joachim,et al.  To be nano or not to be nano? , 2005, Nature materials.

[53]  Holger Schütz,et al.  Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology , 2008 .