Abstract
In view of the widespread developments in technology, nowadays scientific communication is available to an ever-growing number of stakeholders. However, contrasting information provided by different sources can sometimes challenge public understanding, as in the case of the controversial science of nanotechnology, which is only recently beginning to infiltrate mainstream public consciousness (Fisk et al. 2014).
The present study will investigate a set of EU webpages dedicated to nanotechnologies and documents released by the Association Friends of the Earth, with a view to assessing the quality of the information provided, resulting from the transfer of specialized notions to lay audiences (Poppi 2012).
In particular, the texts will be analyzed with the twofold objective of establishing which elements are used to improve comprehension for the general public, as well as the degree of accuracy, alteration or bias of the information provided. Accordingly, the study will investigate how meaning is conveyed, the role of background knowledge (Poppi 2011), the choice of transparent lexical items and the provision of explanations for specialized lexis. In particular, the analysis will focus on the adoption of popularization strategies, as well Hyland’s study on metadiscourse (2005).
Both typologies of texts under scrutiny - EU webpages and environmentalist documents - show a primary concern, at the lexical level, with the use of nanotechnologies: USE is the second most frequent lemma in the corpus of EU webpages, after NANO, and the third in the corpus of environmentalist documents, after NANO and FOOD; ‘the use of’ is the first most frequent three-word cluster around NANO in both sub-corpora. Beyond the emphasis on the use of nanotechnologies, environmentalist texts also reveal the association of NANO with highly emotional topics, i.e. babies and food. Indeed, the language points to something more than a mere association. The frequent construct 'in + baby (formula)' and ‘in + food’, highlights the pervasiveness of NANO components that are already found everywhere and are possibly contaminating our environment. Conversely, EU webpages underline a more beneficial view of nanotechnologies, as in the case of those used ‘in medicine’, ‘in the workplace’, ‘in manufacturing’, or already present ‘in nature’ (‘natural nanomaterials’).
Turning to the strategies adopted in the texts for the purpose of popularizing discourse “to manage its means so as to enable understanding and learning” (Calsamiglia/Van Dijk 2004: 17), the corpus of environmentalist documents shows that NANO-related terms are widely contextualised and explained, while code-glosses related to other scientific terms applied in the NANO discourse are very few. For instance, very frequently used technical terms, such as ‘titanium dioxyde’, ‘hydroxapatite’, ‘antimicrobial’, ‘triclosan’, or ‘in vivo’ are never defined in the corpus, suggesting that previous knowledge on the part of the reader of the fields of chemistry and biology is taken for granted. On the contrary, texts in the EU section are characterized by plain language that intentionally avoids technicalities and obscure terminology; technical terms are rare and, when present, generally explained by means of glosses or exemplification.
In order to facilitate understanding of the complexities of the NANO-world, forms of easification and metaphorization are adopted in both sub-corpora, such as the comparison between a tennis ball and planet Earth - “One way to understand how incredibly tiny these particles are is to consider a tennis ball in comparison with planet Earth. On scale, a tennis ball is the same size in relation to Earth as a nanoparticle is to a tennis ball” – or the apple simile: “One nanometre is to an apple what an apple is to the Earth”.
Moreover, the interactional resources of metadiscourse, i.e. hedges, boosters, attitude markers, engagement markers and self-mentions are often called upon, as they are strictly connected with the classical rhetorical persuasive proofs of ethos and pathos, which in turn support the writers’ credibility and affective appeals and contribute to making the texts more appealing and persuasive.