Communication vs Communications
July 22, 2015 2:55 PM   Subscribe

A recent question here involved a job title with the word Communications in it. I thought, from the job description, that Communication (no s) was the more appropriate word--but apparently I was wrong. Can someone explain why?

As I understand it, communication refers to transferring information between people; communications refers to the technology that makes communication possible. It seems pretty clear to me that the job in question has little to do with actual communications technology, yet everyone in the thread used Communications, even people who do similar work.
Now a few months ago I probably wouldn't even have noticed the s or lack thereof, but recently I came across an internet rant about the difference, and this seemed to be a no-s situation to me... but no one else.
Obviously there's been a miscommunication(s) somewhere. Help me refine my understanding!
posted by mpark to Writing & Language (8 answers total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
It sounds like the internet rant you saw doesn't actually reflect prevalent usage in the field -- or, to communicate it more succinctly, sounds like it was full of shit.
posted by mister pointy at 3:02 PM on July 22, 2015 [3 favorites]


After looking at M-W and other sources, it appears "communications" refers, yes, to the technology for communication, and also to the corporate function, and the career, and the college course .... Not limited to the technology.

"Communication" is just the basic verb or concept for transferring information between people, not the institutions that do that.
posted by JimN2TAW at 3:16 PM on July 22, 2015 [2 favorites]


Comminications is a job title for someone who works in corporate communication. Your ranter's distinction is one that existed before communications as a corporate role existed. The language has evolved, as it is supposed to.
posted by DarlingBri at 3:49 PM on July 22, 2015


As I understand it, communication refers to transferring information between people; communications refers to the technology that makes communication possible.

Yeah, that is made up. I was willing to believe, per DarlingBri, that this was a distinction at some point before "communications as a corporate role" existed, but I just found issues of a periodical from at least 1898 on marketing communications, so if there was such a time the word was restricted to technologies alone, neither your ranter nor anyone else now alive remembers it. Also, I suspect it evolved out of the C19 way of summarizing correspondence between institutions - often published as "Communications" - as in "Communications from the Vatican" or "Communications Between the Colonial Office and the Governors of Upper and Lower Canada."
posted by Miko at 4:03 PM on July 22, 2015 [6 favorites]


http://www.drmichellemazur.com/2013/03/difference-between-communication-communications.html
posted by k8t at 4:37 PM on July 22, 2015


it’s just an extra “S” what difference does it make?”

they’re both candy right?

He wrote an article about the key to leadership is communications.

you can’t use words like “pedantic” or “alas” that just makes you look like an ass.

You’re over cookie cutter, formulaic speeches that sound just like everyone elses


Your final thought shouldn’t be an after thought.

I’m so obsessed with all thing communication

I really wouldn't bother taking usage dictates from someone who, despite an incredibly poor grasp of standard written English, is selling themselves as a "communication coach." The irony is deep and rich, with overtones of cherry and smoke.
posted by Miko at 4:44 PM on July 22, 2015 [4 favorites]


Just a personal note: I'm a 30-year print editor, generally conservative in matters of usage. But in this case, I can't see (never have) that such a tiny distinction is worth preserving. I nearly always lop off the final s, except in formal job descriptions and quotations from print sources.
posted by key_of_z at 6:44 PM on July 22, 2015


The following excerpts should suffice to show that the term "communications director" or "director of communications" is in common usage:

NY Times, 2015/02/04: "Hillary Rodham Clinton has added Jennifer Palmieri, the White House’s communications director, to her fledgling 2016 presidential campaign staff."

NY Times, 2014/08/27: "Nicole Zeitzer Johnson is the director of communications at Qello, a digital streaming service ..."

The New Yorker, 2014/06/02: "In an interview on MSNBC, Nicolle Wallace, who worked with Rove on George W. Bush’s 2004 reëlection campaign and then served as the White House communications director, said that Rove was “off the wall” and “had some of the facts wrong,” [...]"

BBC, 2015/06/11: "Fifa communications director Walter De Gregorio has been sacked after sealing his fate with a joke about the governing body on Swiss TV. "

The Guardian, 2013/10/19: "Sixsmith (the real one) has also been a communications director for New Labour – until he was forcibly "resigned" in 2002 – as well as an adviser on the TV series The Thick of It."

So, I would say that your understanding that the term "communications" refers solely to communications technology is incorrect. I've noticed a common pattern in certain kinds of folk grammar rules. Suppose that term A can be used in situation X while term B can be used in situation X or Y. Somehow, this scenario causes some people to infer that term B should (or even must) only be used in situation Y.
posted by mhum at 7:12 PM on July 22, 2015 [2 favorites]


« Older Survey tool   |   How to entertain people on a bus ride? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.