Search

Researchers point to four potential issues related to the popularisation of quantum science and technology. These include a lack of explaining underlying quantum concepts of quantum 2.0 technology, framing quantum science and technology as spooky and enigmatic, framing quantum technology narrowly in terms of public good and having a strong focus on quantum computing. To date, no research has yet assessed whether these potential issues are actually present in popular communication about quantum science. In this content analysis, we have examined the presence of these potential issues in 501 TEDx talks with quantum science and technology content. Results show that while most experts (70%) explained at least one underlying quantum concept (superposition, entanglement or contextuality) of quantum 2.0 technology, only 28% of the non-experts did so. Secondly, the spooky/enigmatic frame was present in about a quarter of the talks. Thirdly, a narrow public good frame was found, predominantly by highlighting the benefits of quantum science and technology (found in over 6 times more talks than risks). Finally, the main focus was on quantum computing at the expense of other quantum technologies. In conclusion, the proposed frames are indeed found in TEDx talks, there is indeed a focus on quantum computing, but at least experts explain underlying quantum concepts often., 30 pages, 7 figures

Contains fulltext : 248113.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Metaphors abound in descriptions of the COVID-19 pandemic: it is described, among other things, as a war, a flood, and a marathon. However, not all metaphors may resonate equally well with members of the public. Given that the pandemic has impacted people’s lives across countries in divergent ways – both in terms of spread and in terms of government-imposed measures, we investigated whether audience perceptions of metaphors for the COVID-19 pandemic depend on source domain and country context. This mixed-design study examined how individuals across three European countries (Germany, Italy, and The Netherlands) perceived different COVID-19 metaphorical frames. Participants (N = 216) were randomly exposed to nine metaphorical frames and one literal-language frame and asked to express their perceptions in terms of liking, aptness, complexity, conventionality, and credibility. Results showed that audience perceptions of metaphorical descriptions of the COVID-19 pandemic differed between source domains and country contexts, but mostly in terms of aptness. These findings suggest that experience with the target domain may indeed be relevant for metaphor perceptions and highlight the importance of studying metaphor appreciation as a multifaceted phenomenon. Findings may also inform metaphor choice by governments, journalists, and other actors to describe this novel situation. 31 maart 2022 13 p.

Bespreking van: M. Degani,Framing the rhetoric of a leader: An analysis of Obama’s election campaign speeches. Houndmills:Palgrave Macmillan ,2015 315 978 1 137 47158 1

This paper offers a systematic, bottom-up, investigation of the role of adjectives as metaphor signals in metaphorical domain constructions (MDCs) such as ‘budgetary anorexia’ and ‘economic crash’ within the framework of Deliberate Metaphor Theory (e.g.,Steen, 2017). To this end, we analyse all MDCs in the VU Amsterdam Metaphor Corpus. Results of our analyses demonstrate that domain adjectives in MDCs do not by definition constitute signals of metaphor, and that not all nouns in MDCs are identified as potentially deliberate metaphors. We identify three different functions of domain adjectives: (1) signal of novel metaphor; (2) signal of conventional metaphor; (3) non-signal. The analyses in this paper provide new insights into both the role of domain adjectives in MDCs, and the position of MDCs as a typical manifestation of potentially deliberate metaphor.

Metaphors occur frequently in literary texts. Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT; e.g., Steen, 2017) proposes that metaphors that serve a communicative function as metaphor are radically different from metaphors that do not have this function. We investigated differences in processing between deliberate and non-deliberate metaphors, compared to non-metaphorical words in literary reading. Using the Deliberate Metaphor Identification Procedure (Reijnierse et al., 2018), we identified metaphors in two literary stories. Then, eye-tracking was used to investigate participants’ (N = 72) reading behavior. Deliberate metaphors were read slower than non-deliberate metaphors, and both metaphor types were read slower than non-metaphorical words. Differences were controlled for several psycholinguistic variables. Differences in reading behavior were related to individual differences in reading experience and absorption and appreciation of the story. These results are in line with predictions from DMT and underline the importance of distinguishing between metaphor types in the experimental study of literary reading.

Why are the noun phrases “spiritual wealth” and “blood-stained wealth” less similar to each other than they seem to be at first sight? Karen Sullivan answers this question and many others in her bo...