สำนักราชบัณฑิตยสภา

The Journal of the Royal Institute of Thailand Vol. 30 No. 1 Jan.-Mar. 2005 134 Communication Study in the 20 th Century : Milestones and Trends content. Communication ethics meant being true to your communica- tion partner; rather than being truthful. Students increasingly gravitated towards majoring in interpersonal and media communication, rather than oral interpretation , public address, etc. Although empiricism was much expected, there remained sustained interest in, and the development of, new methods in rhetorical analysis. Moreover, voice and drama broke away to form their own departments. The New Rhetorics (1965 - 1980) In 1965, the historical-critical Aristotelian analysis of message arguments and figures of speech was suggested in the Quarterly Journal of Speech. The sole method of textual analysis placed rhetoricians outside of the mainstream of the discipline. However, Edward Black’s book Rhetorical Criticism: A Study of Method voiced opposing views of traditional rhetorical scholarship by proposing multiple ways to conduct speech analysis.Aristotle’s categories of logos, pathos, and ethos continued to be used to analyze a message, the speaker, and the audience. New approaches in rhetorics came to prominence soon after that. Many humanists did not agree with the non-artistic, unsubtle method of demonstrations to effect persua- sion. Scholars thus looked more closely at the nonverbal aspects of communication. Communication media, once regarded as entertain- ment, was so significant in shaping culture that McLuhan made the asser- tion, “The medium is the message.” This stirred renewed investigation amongst communications students across the country. European theorists were critical of American social scientists, accusing them of serving those in power. The European thinking, with its emphasis on communication and culture, began to influence U.S. scholars by the end of 1970s. A Universal Model (1970 - 1980) The amount of new findings in communication from the last two decades had been far fromsatisfactory. Thus, communication empiricists thought there was a need for a single grand theory on which their research could be based. Each group examined the variables important to them. This created sub-disciplines within a discipline; for example, speech anxiety within rhetoric, leadership within group communication, media violence within mass communication, source credibility within persuasion, and self-esteem, self-disclosure, trust, nonverbal signals, conflict resolution, and so on in the area of interpersonal communication. Thomas Kuhn (1996) 3 argued that “a universal paradigm or model is themark of a mature science.”Com- munication professors, aware that the field was lacking in a universal paradigm, hunted for a unifying theory or approach that would guarantee academic respectability as in other fields such as psychology or physics. So, throughout the decade of the 1970s, empiricists pursued the dream ofauniversallyacceptedcommunication model. In 1970s scholars proposed a plethora of schematic models of communication. These came in all shapes and forms with each more convoluted than the one before. But no single model was accepted as the paradigm of the communication process. In 1977, scholars championed three types of communication theory- laws, rules, and systems. Laws were the goal of the scientific approach; rules were that of humanism. Systems theorists viewed a communication event as a system of interdependent and interacting parts and regarded the communication event as greater than its individual communicator. This decade’s debates failed to coalesce on a universal model of communication; but, over time, interest waned and scholars sawnousinga singleparadigm. Fragmentation (1980 - Present) Since 1983, the field had a mixture of creative energy and stressful agitation. Communication departments across the US offered new courses and majors that were attractive to students. American students began to take more courses in public relations, advertising, negotiation, and leadership; courses inmass and interpersonal communica- 3 Kuhn, the philosopher of science, made this remark in this landmark book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , which was translated into Thai by Siriphen Piriyajitakonkij in 2001.