The many faces of nano in newspaper reporting

  • Max Boholm
  • Åsa Boholm


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.


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



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


  1. Allan S, Anderson A, Petersen A (2010) Framing risk: nanotechnology in the news. J Risk Res 13(1–2):29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 1–18Google Scholar
  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 29–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson A, Allan S, Petersen A, Wilkinson C (2005) The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Sci Commun 27:200–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson A, Petersen A, Wilkinson C, Allan S (2009) Nanotechnology, risk and communication. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balzani V (2005) Nanoscience and nanotechnology: a personal view of a chemist. Small 1(3):278–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins P, Hollo C (2010) English grammar: an introduction. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Cormick C (2009) Why do we need to know what the public thinks about nanotechnology? Nanoethics 3:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crichton M (2002) Prey. HarperCollins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Drexler E (1986) Engines of creation: the coming era of nanotechnology. Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden CityGoogle Scholar
  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):78–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Entman RM (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun 43(4):51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faber B (2006) Popularizing nanoscience: the public rhetoric of nanotechnology, 1986–1999. Tech Commun Q 15(2):141–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Faber B, Mackinnon J, Petroccione M (2005) Media portraits of nanotech in North American written media: 1986–2000. Nanotechnol Law Bus 2(4):248–363Google Scholar
  15. Fillmore CJ (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2):222–254Google Scholar
  16. Friedman SM, Egolf BP (2005) Nanotechnology: risks and the media. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 24:5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaskell G, Eyck TT, Jackson J (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Underst Sci 14:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis: an essay on the organisation of experience. Pengiun Books, HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
  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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  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 41–58Google Scholar
  21. Halliday MAK (1973) Explorations in the functions of language. Edward Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Hunston S, Francis G (2000) Pattern grammar: a corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  23. Joachim C (2005) To be nano or not to be nano? Nat Mater 4(2):107–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2008) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4:87–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kjølberg KL (2009) Representations of nanotechnology in Norwegian newspapers: implications for public participation. Nanoethics 3(1):61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Laing A (2005) A report on Canadian and American news media coverage of nanotechnology issues. Report from The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. 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):325–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 534–538Google Scholar
  29. Lösch A (2006) Anticipating the futures of nanotechnology: visionary images as means of communication. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 18(3/4):393–409Google Scholar
  30. Lyons J (1968) Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Matthiessen CMIM (2009) Meaning in the making: meaning potential emerging from acts of meaning. Lang Learn 59(1):206–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nerlich B (2008) Powered by imagination: nanobots at the Science Photo Library. Sci Cult 17(3):269–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Neuman WR, Just MR, Cringler AN (1992) Common knowledge: news and the construction of political meaning. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, LondonGoogle Scholar
  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 4:95–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Priest S, Greenhalgh T, Kramer V (2010) Risk perceptions starting to shift? U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 12:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Recanati F (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Russell B (1923) Vagueness. Australas J Psychol Philos 1:84–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scheufele DA (1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. J Commun 49(1):103–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 4:91–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmidt Kjaergard R (2010) Making a small country count: nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996–2006. Public Underst Sci 19(1):80–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schütz H, Wiedemann PM (2008) Faming effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 17:369–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007) Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27(1):59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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):283–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 11:1555–1571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sinclair J (1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Sperber D, Wilson D (1995, orig. 1986) Relevance: communication and cognition, 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  48. Stephens LF (2005) News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Sci Commun 27:175–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stubbs M (2002) Words and phrases: corpus studies of lexical semantics. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  50. Te Kulve H (2006) Evolving repertoires: nanotechnology in daily newspapers in the Netherlands. Sci Cult 15(4):367–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 31:139–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Global StudiesUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations