“Tiny new ingredients are a big concern”. The popularization of nanotechonologies in environmental organizations’ and institutions’ publications


Abstract


The chapter sets out to explore how nanotechnology is popularised in online reports and brochures in English issued by European and American institutions and environmental organizations. Nanotechnologies, by manipulating matter at a nanoscale, have a great impact on several disciplines and find applications in sectors such as medicine, engineering, electronics, food, and renewable resources. Given the repercussions on humans’ daily life, many information campaigns have been launched in order to disseminate nanotechnological knowledge to lay people. Different forms and media have been exploited as in other knowledge dissemination processes, with the new media and Web 2.0 playing an important role (Garzone 2007). If knowledge dissemination has been often seen in terms of a “recontextualization” (Calsamiglia, Van Dijk 2004) and a “translation” (Gotti 2013) of specialized information from experts to non-experts as opposed to specialized discourse (Ciapuscio 2003; Calsamiglia, van Dijk 2004; Minelli de Oliveira, Pagano 2006; Kermas, Christiansen 2013; Bongo, Caliendo 2014; Garzone 2014; Gotti 2014; Bathia et al. 2015; Salvi, Bowker 2015), it is nonetheless true that this transfer of information often goes beyond the aim of making exclusive knowledge more comprehensible to the generic public. As a matter of fact, popularized discourse frequently aims “to inform, raise awareness and cause the reader to take action” (Gotti 2014, p. 29). A striking example is for instance health discourse (Cummings 2004, 2005, 2009; Hall 2006). Therefore, this chapter intends to analyse how specialized concepts pertaining to the domain of nanotechnology are popularized in online institutions’ and environmental organizations’ reports and brochures in English and in Italian. With the former emphasizing the advantages and the latter the risks of nanoscience, a common point they share is, however, their concern with the diffusion of nano knowledge and its related vocabulary. More specifically, the analysis, based on Calsamiglia and van Dijk’s classification of five “types of explanation” (2004, p. 372), will identify the discursive strategies adopted.

DOI Code: 10.1285/i22390359v40p23

Keywords: nanotechnologies; popularisation; discourse analysis

References


Anthony L. 2009, Issues in the design and development of software tools for corpus studies: The case for collaboration, in Baker P. (ed.), Contemporary Corpus Linguistics, Continuum Press, London UK, pp. 87-104.

Bohom Å. and Larsson S. 2019, What is the problem? A literature review on challenges facing the communication of nanotechnology to the public, in “Journal of Nanoparticle Research” 21 [86], pp. 1-21.

Bondi M. and Yu D. 2018, Textual Voices in Corporate Reporting: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Chinese, Italian, and American CSR Reports, in “International Journal of Business Communication” 56 [2], pp. 173-197.

Brown J. and Kuzma J. 2013, Hungry for information: public attitudes toward food nanotechnology and labeling, in “Review of Policy Research” 30 [5], pp. 512-548.

Calsamiglia H. and Ferrero C.L. 2003, Role and position of scientific voices: Reported speech in the media, in “Discourse Studies” 5 [2], pp. 147-173.

Calsamiglia H. and Van Dijk T.A. 2004, Popularization discourse and knowledge about the genome, in “Discourse Society” 15, pp. 369-389.

Castellini O. et al. 2007, Nanotechnology and the public: effectively communicating nanoscale science and engineering concepts, in “Journal of Nanoparticle Research” 9 [2], pp. 183-189.

Cormick C. and Hunter S. 2014, Valuing values: better public engagement on nanotechnology demands a better understanding of the diversity of publics, in “NanoEthics” 8 [1], pp. 57-71.

Dahl T. and Fløttum K. 2014, A linguistic framework for studying voices and positions in the climate debate, in “Text & Talk” 34 [4], pp. 401-420.

Delgado A., Lein-Kjølberg K. and Wickson F. 2011, Public engagement coming of age: from theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology, in “Public Understanding of Science” 20 [6], pp. 826-845.

Duncan T.V. 2011, The communication challenges presented by nanofoods, in “Nature Nanotechnoly” 6 [11], pp. 683-688.

Drexler E. 1986, Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, Anchor Books, New York.

Fisk K., Fitzgerald R. and Cokley J. 2014, Controversial New Sciences in the Media: Content Analysis of Global Reporting of Nanotechnology during the Last Decade, in “Media International Australia” 150 [1], pp. 156-166.

Flowerdew L. 2002, Corpus-based Analyses in EAP, in Flowerdew J. (ed.), Academic Discourse, Pearson, London, pp. 95-114.

Fries M-H. 2018, Nanotechnology and the Gray Goo Scenario: Narratives of Doom?, in “ILCEA” 31, pp. 1-18. http://journals.openedition.org/ilcea/4687 (18.01.2019).

Garzone G. 2006, Perspectives on ESP and popularization, CUEM, Milano.

Garzone G. 2007, Genres, Multimodality and the World Wide Web: Theoretical Issues, in Garzone G., Catenaccio P. and Poncini G. (eds.), Multimodality in Corporate Communication. Web Genres and Discursive Identity, Franco Angeli, Milano, pp. 15-10.

Gaskell G., Eyck T., Jackson T. and Veltri G. 2005, Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States, in “Public Understanding of Science” 14, pp. 81-90.

Gordjin B. 2005, Nanoethics: From Utopian Dreams and Apocalyptic Nightmares towards a more Balanced View, in “Science and Engineering Ethics” 11, pp. 521-533.

Gotti M. 2013, The Analysis of Popularization Discourse: Conceptual Changes and Methodological Evolutions, in Kermas S. and Christiansen T. (Eds.), The Popularization of Specialized Discourse and Knowledge across Communities and Cultures, Edipuglia, Bari, pp. 9-32.

Gotti M. 2014, Reformulation and recontextualization in popularization discourse, in “Ibérica” 27, pp. 15-34.

Jiyoun K. et al. 2014, Disentangling the influence of value predispositions and risk/benefit perceptions on support for nanotechnology among the American public, in “Risk Analysis” 34 [5], pp. 965-980.

Hyland K. 2002, What do they Mean? Questions in Academic Writing, in “Text & Talk” 22 [4], pp. 529-557.

Hyland K. 2004, Engagement and Disciplinarity: The Other Side of Evaluation, in Del Lungo G. and Tognini Bonelli E. (Eds.), Academic Discourse: Linguistic Insights into Evaluation, Peter Lang, Bern, pp. 13-30.

Hyland K. 2005, Metadiscourse. Exploring Interaction in Writing, Continuum, London.

Laherto A. 2010, An analysis of the educational significance of nanoscience and nanotechnology in scientific and technological literacy, in “Science Education International” 21 [3], pp. 160-175.

Lazzeretti C. and Poppi F. 2020, Nanotechnologies. Where should they take us?, in “Lingue e Linguaggi” 34, pp. 31-49.

Shu-Fen L., Huan S. and Wu Y. 2013, Validation and exploration of instruments for assessing public knowledge of and attitudes toward nanotechnology, in “Journal of Science Education and Technology” 22 [4], pp. 548-559.

Lorenzet A. 2012, Fear of being irrelevant? Science communication and nanotechnology as an ‘internal’controversy, in “Journal of Communication” 11 [4], pp. 1-7.

Macoubrie J. 2006, Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government, in “Public Understanding of Science” 15 [2], pp. 221-241.

NNI 2010, Nanotechnology 101. What It Is and How It Works, Nano.gov, online. https://www.nano.gov/nanotech-101/what (18.01.2019).

O'Donnell M. 2008a, The UAM CorpusTool: Software for corpus annotation and exploration, in Proceedings of the XXVI Congreso de AESLA, Almeria, Spain. 3-5 April 2008. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.159.7393&rep=rep1&type=pdf (18.01.2019).

O’Donnell M. 2008b, Demonstration of the UAM CorpusTool for text and image annotation, in Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technologies: Demo Session, pp. 13-16. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1564144.1564148 (18.01.2019).

Satterfield T et al. 2009, Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies, in “Nature Nanotechnoly” 4 [11], pp. 752-759.

Satterfield T. et al. 2012, Understanding shifting perceptions of nanotechnologies and their implications for policy dialogues about emerging technologies, in “Science and Public Policy” 40 [2], pp. 247-260.

Schönborn K., Höst G. and Lundin Palmerius K.J. 2015, Measuring understanding of nanoscience and nanotechnology: development and validation of the nano-knowledge instrument (NanoKI), in “Chemistry Education Research and Practice” 16, pp. 346-356.

Semino E. and Short M. 2004, Corpus Stylistics. Speech, writing and thought presentation in a corpus of English writing, Routledge, London.

Siegrist M., Cousin M. E., Kastenholz H. and Wiek A. 2007, Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust, in “Appetite” 49 [2], pp. 459-466.

Siegrist M. 2010, Predicting the future: review of public perception studies of nanotechnology, in “Human and Ecological Risk Assessment” 16 [4], pp. 837-846.

Vandermoere F. et al. 2010, The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: about God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature, in “Journal of Nanoparticle Research” 12 [2], pp. 373-381.

Sezzi A. and Bondi M. 2019, “I am going on a ketogenic diet”. Communicating dietary requirements for pediatric patients, in “Token: A Journal of English Linguistics” 9, pp. 59-85.


Full Text: pdf

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.
کاغذ a4

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 3.0 Italia License.