The many faces of nano in newspaper reporting

Journal of Nanoparticle Research

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2012, Pages

  Boholm, Max ^a   Boholm, Åsa ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Corpus linguistics; Meaning potential; Media reporting; Morpheme; Nano; Public; Public understanding; Societal implications

Indexed keywords

CORPUS LINGUISTICS; MEANING POTENTIAL; MEDIA REPORTING; MORPHEME; NANO; PUBLIC; PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING; SOCIETAL IMPLICATIONS;

LINGUISTICS; METRIC SYSTEM;

NANOSCIENCE;

ARTICLE; EUROPE; INTERNATIONAL STANDARD UNIT; LANGUAGE ABILITY; LINGUISTICS; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; SWEDEN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84856062851     PISSN: 13880764     EISSN: 1572896X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11051-012-0722-y     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Allan S, Anderson A, Petersen A (2010) Framing risk: nanotechnology in the news. J Risk Res 13(1-2):29-44
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 29-66
4. Anderson A, Allan S, Petersen A, Wilkinson C (2005) The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Sci Commun 27:200-220 (Pubitemid 41795479)
5. Anderson A, Petersen A, Wilkinson C, Allan S (2009) Nanotechnology, risk and communication. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, New York
6. Balzani V (2005) Nanoscience and nanotechnology: a personal view of a chemist. Small 1(3):278-283 (Pubitemid 43951774)
7. Collins P, Hollo C (2010) English grammar: an introduction. Palgrave Macmillan, London
8. Cormick C (2009) Why do we need to know what the public thinks about nanotechnology? Nanoethics 3:167-173
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):78-89
12. Entman RM (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun 43(4):51-58
13. Faber B (2006) Popularizing nanoscience: the public rhetoric of nanotechnology, 1986-1999.TechCommunQ15(2):141-169
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 24:5-11 (Pubitemid 43009961)
17. Gaskell G, Eyck TT, Jackson J (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Underst Sci 14:81-90 (Pubitemid 40097270)
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 York
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 41-58
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, Amsterdam
23. Joachim C (2005) To be nano or not to be nano? Nat Mater 4(2):107-109 (Pubitemid 40178703)
24. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2008) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4:87-90
25. Kjølberg KL (2009) Representations of nanotechnology in Norwegian newspapers: implications for public participation. Nanoethics 3(1):61-72
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-canadianand americannewsmediacoveragenanotechnologyissues.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):325-337
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):393-409 (Pubitemid 44083935)
30. Lyons J (1968) Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
31. Matthiessen CMIM (2009) Meaning in the making: meaning potential emerging from acts of meaning. Lang Learn 59(1):206-229
32. Nerlich B (2008) Powered by imagination: nanobots at the Science Photo Library. Sci Cult 17(3):269-292
33. Neuman WR, Just MR, Cringler AN (1992) Common knowledge: news and the construction of political meaning. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London
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 4:95-98
35. Priest S, Greenhalgh T, Kramer V (2010) Risk perceptions starting to shift? U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 12:11-20
36. Recanati F (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
37. Russell B (1923) Vagueness. Australas J Psychol Philos 1:84-92
38. Scheufele DA (1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. J Commun 49(1):103-122
39. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659-667 (Pubitemid 41767366)
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 4:91-94
41. Schmidt Kjaergard R (2010) Making a small country count: nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996-2006. Public Underst Sci 19(1):80-97
42. Schütz H, Wiedemann PM (2008) Faming effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 17:369-379
43. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007) Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27(1):59-69 (Pubitemid 46411634)
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):283-290
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 11:1555-1571
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 27:175-199 (Pubitemid 41795478)
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): 367-382
51. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453-458 (Pubitemid 11145313)
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 31:139-166