Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The many faces of nano in newspaper reporting

  • Perspectives
  • Published:
Journal of Nanoparticle Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The fifteen most frequently represented newspapers in the corpus, accounting for 75% of the articles, are the respected national morning papers Svenska Dagbladet (269 articles) and Dagens Nyheter (200 articles), the national daily evening tabloids Aftonbladet (120 articles), Expressen (68 articles), and GT (27 articles), the free daily morning paper Metro (101 articles), the daily local/regional morning papers Sydsvenskan (383 articles), Göteborgs Posten (267 articles), Helsingborgs Dagblad (124 articles), Borås Tidning (83 articles), Nerikes Allehanda (67 articles), Hallands Nyheter (49 articles), Västerbottens Kuriren (37 articles), and Dala Demokraten (33 articles) and the national business-oriented newspaper Dagens Industri (110 articles).

  2. Many of the proper names excluded from analysis are indeed related to the Greek word nanos meaning ‘dwarf’, for example, Ipod Nano, the Tata Nano, and the company name Nanosolar, but these proper names are excluded due to space limitations. Furthermore, determining whether or not two or more words are homonyms can be exacting, so apparent homonyms might indeed be related to the Greek word for dwarf in the way that, for example, the female name Sophia is related to the Greek word sophia for ‘wisdom’, as in philosophy (meaning ‘love of wisdom’). Until a detailed etymological analysis of these supposed homonyms is conducted, this possibility cannot ultimately be ruled out.

  3. The polysemous word word is referred to in the sense of lexeme (or lemma), i.e., an abstract notion for a set of word forms related by inflection (Lyons 1968; Stubbs 2002). For example, the lemma nanoteknologi (‘nanotechnology’), a noun, includes the word forms nanoteknologi (‘nanotechnology’), i.e., the singular form, nanoteknologier (‘nanotechnologies’), i.e., the plural form, and the genitive forms of these, nanoteknologis (‘nanotechnology’s’) and nanoteknologiers (‘nanotechnologies’). In Swedish, definiteness is also indicated by inflection, for example, nanoteknologin (‘the nanotechnology’). This means that the words (lexemes) referred to below, and their frequencies, often encompass many inflected word forms in the corpus.

  4. Both words are here translated as ‘nanotechnology’. Etymologically, teknologi in Swedish, and technology in English, would stand for ‘the knowledge of technique’, and teknik for the practical application of knowledge or skill, as in the English word technique. However, the word teknik is (today) often used as more or less synonymous with teknologi.

  5. The philosopher Bertrand Russell (1923) argued that all words are more or less vague.

  6. A Swedish mil is ten kilometers, approximately six English miles.

  7. A nanosatellite is not a nanosized satellite (1–100 nm); rather, it is a satellite weighing 1–10 kg, making it small in relation to others.

  8. The distinction between count and mass nouns, or non-count nouns, is less trivial than it first may seem. It would perhaps be better to distinguish count and non-count (mass) uses of nouns. See, for example, Collins and Hollo (2010) for a standard textbook discussion of the distinction in linguistics, and Laycock (2005) for a philosophical/ontological discussion of problems with the distinction.

  9. The word nanofabrik (‘nanofactory’) is not used as a counterpart to nanolaboratory for the commercial application of nanotechnology. It instead refers to a hypothetical system of nanolevel machines able to construct atomically precise nanostructures, which would in turn be components of macro-level devices.

  10. An alternative explanation is that these words are instances of the less precise meaning of nano, namely, ‘very small’ as in nanobil (‘nanocar’), nanosattelite (‘nanosatellite’) or nanoblogg (‘nanoblog’) (see next section), and hence need not be modified by any rhetorical exaggeration.

References

  • Allan S, Anderson A, Petersen A (2010) Framing risk: nanotechnology in the news. J Risk Res 13(1–2):29–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 29–66

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson A, Allan S, Petersen A, Wilkinson C (2005) The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Sci Commun 27:200–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson A, Petersen A, Wilkinson C, Allan S (2009) Nanotechnology, risk and communication. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Balzani V (2005) Nanoscience and nanotechnology: a personal view of a chemist. Small 1(3):278–283

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Collins P, Hollo C (2010) English grammar: an introduction. Palgrave Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cormick C (2009) Why do we need to know what the public thinks about nanotechnology? Nanoethics 3:167–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crichton M (2002) Prey. HarperCollins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Drexler E (1986) Engines of creation: the coming era of nanotechnology. Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):78–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entman RM (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun 43(4):51–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faber B (2006) Popularizing nanoscience: the public rhetoric of nanotechnology, 1986–1999. Tech Commun Q 15(2):141–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore CJ (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2):222–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman SM, Egolf BP (2005) Nanotechnology: risks and the media. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 24:5–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell G, Eyck TT, Jackson J (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Underst Sci 14:81–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis: an essay on the organisation of experience. Pengiun Books, Harmondsworth

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 York

  • Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL (eds) Syntax and semantics: speech acts, vol 3. Academic Press, New York, pp 41–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday MAK (1973) Explorations in the functions of language. Edward Arnold, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunston S, Francis G (2000) Pattern grammar: a corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. John Benjamins, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Joachim C (2005) To be nano or not to be nano? Nat Mater 4(2):107–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2008) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4:87–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kjølberg KL (2009) Representations of nanotechnology in Norwegian newspapers: implications for public participation. Nanoethics 3(1):61–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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):325–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lösch A (2006) Anticipating the futures of nanotechnology: visionary images as means of communication. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 18(3/4):393–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons J (1968) Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthiessen CMIM (2009) Meaning in the making: meaning potential emerging from acts of meaning. Lang Learn 59(1):206–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nerlich B (2008) Powered by imagination: nanobots at the Science Photo Library. Sci Cult 17(3):269–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman WR, Just MR, Cringler AN (1992) Common knowledge: news and the construction of political meaning. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 4:95–98

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Priest S, Greenhalgh T, Kramer V (2010) Risk perceptions starting to shift? U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 12:11–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Recanati F (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell B (1923) Vagueness. Australas J Psychol Philos 1:84–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele DA (1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. J Commun 49(1):103–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 4:91–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt Kjaergard R (2010) Making a small country count: nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996–2006. Public Underst Sci 19(1):80–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schütz H, Wiedemann PM (2008) Faming effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 17:369–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007) Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27(1):59–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):283–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 11:1555–1571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair J (1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber D, Wilson D (1995, orig. 1986) Relevance: communication and cognition, 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

  • Stephens LF (2005) News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Sci Commun 27:175–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs M (2002) Words and phrases: corpus studies of lexical semantics. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Te Kulve H (2006) Evolving repertoires: nanotechnology in daily newspapers in the Netherlands. Sci Cult 15(4):367–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver DA, Lively E, Bimber B (2009) Searching for a frame: news media tell the story of technological progress, risk, and regulation. Sci Commun 31:139–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by research grants from the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg, P.O. Box 700, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Max Boholm & Åsa Boholm

Authors
  1. Max Boholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Åsa Boholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Max Boholm.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boholm, M., Boholm, Å. The many faces of nano in newspaper reporting. J Nanopart Res 14, 722 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-0722-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-0722-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation