Annenberg
« previous post | next post »
This past semester, the lectures for ling0001 took place in a classroom located in Penn's Annenberg School for Communication, and one of the students in the course asked me something that I've wondered about myself from time to time: Why is it "The Annenberg School for Communication" rather than "The Annenberg School of Communications"?
There are two questions here:
- Why "for" rather than "of", as in most other post-secondary "School of X" institutions?
- Why singular "communication" rather than plural "communications"?
Compare the many web hits for "school of communications", where other programs made the opposite choice of preposition and plurality.
Wikipedia deepens the question by telling us that
The school was established in 1958 by Wharton School alum Walter Annenberg as the Annenberg School of Communications. The name was changed to its current title in 1990.
One clue can be seen in this plaque, displayed in the building's lobby next to a bust of WHA:
An informed source explained to me that WHA wanted to make it clearer that students and faculty should use communication for worthy ends. He felt that "for" conveyed purpose where "of" conveyed possession, and that "for" invited action while "of" brought to mind passive acceptance of the status quo.
And the plaque's text also suggests why he preferred not to share plurality with the world's many Ministries of Communications.
So this goes into my notes for future work on the semantics of prepositions and plurality. . .
Stephen Goranson said,
December 21, 2025 @ 9:51 am
Also, reportedly, the U of Southern California School of Journalism was renamed The Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. It publishes the International Journal of Communication.
Also, as you would know, Dropsie College transitioned to the Annenberg Research Institute before becoming part of U Penn, now the Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies.
Bybo said,
December 21, 2025 @ 10:14 am
Is it entirely coincidental that the German would be something like ‘Annenberg-Hochschule für Kommunikation’?
Philip Taylor said,
December 21, 2025 @ 10:24 am
Vaguley related, but we used to have the RNIB ("Royal (National) Institute for the Blind") [1, 2] — now we have the RNIB ("Royal (National) Institute of the Blind").
——–
[1] Originally "British and Foreign Society for Improving the Embossed Literature of the Blind"
[2]
Stephen Goranson said,
December 21, 2025 @ 10:56 am
In an article noting the end of Mr. Annenberg's service as Ambassador to the UK, the NY Times (Oct. 14, 1974) reported:
"He said that Mr. Nixon and Dean Rusk, former Secretary of State, were advising him now on one of his next projects—a school of international communications to be established in New York or Washington."
Evidently, the location changed to Philadelphia's Dropsie College FOR Hebrew and Cognate Learning, a home with some distinguished faculty and publications, including Jewish Quarterly Review. Annenberg, of course, owned several publications.
Mai Kuha said,
December 21, 2025 @ 12:23 pm
The "worthy ends" rationale brings to mind the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science.
Gregory Kusnick said,
December 21, 2025 @ 12:39 pm
One might naively suppose that the primary activity at a School of Communications is teaching, whereas the primary activity at a School for Communication is communicating, the latter being perhaps more of a two-way street than the former.
Philip Taylor said,
December 21, 2025 @ 12:45 pm
OK, so what is the primary activity of a school of whales, and what would be the primary activity of a school for whales, if such a thing existed ?!
J.W. Brewer said,
December 21, 2025 @ 12:59 pm
Due to university-to-university variation in numbering conventions, I never took ling0001. Instead (and many decades ago now), I took a class known as Ling 110a, which I suspect was broadly similar. IIRC, it was taught in a classroom in HGS, which when uninitialized (which most people didn't bother to do) meant "Hall of Graduate Studies." Not "of Graduate Study," FWIW. And by that point in time, at least, there was no taboo against classes for undergraduates being offered on the premises.
I think American academia has plenty of centers or institutes or programs etc. "for the Study of X" and also plenty of ditto of the roughly synonymous "for X Studies."
Julian Hook said,
December 21, 2025 @ 1:07 pm
A few weeks ago I reviewed a student's CV, which indicated that he had presented a paper at the Society of Music Theory. I told him that it's actually the Society *for* Music Theory. On reflection, I decided that "for" is more appropriate when what follows is an area of interest (Society for Music Theory, Society for Creative Anachronism), but "of" may be preferable when what follows identifies a group of people (Society of Highway Engineers, Society of Friends). But there are exceptions, such as the Society of Hospital Medicine. The student replied that he suddenly imagined that the Society of Hospital Medicine comprised a bunch of prescription bottles having spirited discussions.
David Marjanović said,
December 21, 2025 @ 1:13 pm
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is written by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and published by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature.
Philip Taylor said,
December 21, 2025 @ 2:02 pm
And just in case anyone believes that David jests —
Dick Margulis said,
December 21, 2025 @ 2:31 pm
The chaotic evil alignment of lines of text on that plaque belie the institution's goal of communication.
Stephen Goranson said,
December 21, 2025 @ 2:53 pm
Dick Margulis: "The chaotic evil alignment of lines of text on that plaque belie the institution's goal of communication."
Was that an attempt at a joke? Or do you really seek authors who agree it was not?
J.W. Brewer said,
December 21, 2025 @ 2:54 pm
If you ask me to solve for X in "school for X," the first nominee that comes to my mind is "scandal," due to (apparently) the continuing cultural prominence of Sheridan's play by that title that premiered way back in 1777. That said, the "School for X" phrasing currently seems common in public secondary schools in New York City, e.g. "Bronx High School for the Visual Arts," "Community School for Social Justice," "Boerum Hill School for International Studies," "EMBER Charter School for Mindful Education, Innovation and Transformation," "Murray Bergtraum High School for Business Careers," "Rockaway Park High School for Environmental Sustainability," and many many many more. Also some "Academy for X" titles, but also plenty of "School of X" ones, and I'm not sure there's a clear pattern that explains the choice among variations.
Philip Taylor said,
December 21, 2025 @ 3:06 pm
Not really sure how to interpret "Or do you really seek authors who agree it was not ?" but I would certainly agree with Dick that the Institute would have done well to seek advice before going for that horrible hotch-potch of non-alignment.
VVOV said,
December 21, 2025 @ 4:00 pm
I don't have much to add to the discussion regarding "of" vs. "for" above, but regarding the singular/plural issue, my intuition (as an outsider to this institution, etc) is that "Communications" here would refer to the academic study of communication, while "Communication" refers to the act/concept of communication itself. Of course the school *is* a place for academic study, but perhaps it's signaling that it aims for such study to be down-to-earth, practical, applied, etc.
Plural abstract nouns generally are a feature of an "academic" register which has been discussed on languagelog before, e.g.: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4376
Dick Margulis said,
December 21, 2025 @ 5:13 pm
@Stephen Goranson: What Philip Taylor said. An important aspect of written communication is readability. Granted readability is only tangentially related to linguistics, and I suppose it's given short shrift in a school for communication. But that's merely a consequence of academic bias against craft knowledge.