# Introduction his short definitional paper is written in an attempt to engage others in the discussion and consideration of the evolution of our communication system and how we might best conceptualize it. In the third and fourth editions of Mass Communication in Canada, Lorimer & McNulty (1996) and then Lorimer & Gasher (2001) dealt with the evolution of the Internet by reviving an old term, public communication. They spoke of the Internet as an extension of public access to worldwide communication technologies such as the postal system, telephones, and telecommunication. The intent was to draw attention to the Internet as an extension of a certain organization of communication technologies rather than a brandnew, revolutionary technology that we had never seen before and which was going to change democracy fundamentally (as the rhetoric of the day suggested). For the developmental stage of the Internet at that juncture, the dichotomy of mass and public communication sufficed. However, with the expansion of the capacities of World Wide Web technologies, and specifically the ability of anyone to broadcast by means Author : Researcher, CM J University, Shillong, Meghalaya. E-mail : aslam_kalam003@rediffmail.com of a Web site to the whole world, such a dichotomy no longer works. The redefinition of mass communication presented in this paper, within a social model of communication itself that conceptually embraces the Internet, seems a much more useful way to proceed. The Concise Oxford Dictionary (9th ed.) offers a variety of meanings for the noun mass. Included among them are: "a coherent body of matter of indefinite shape. a dense aggregation of objects a large number or amount an unbroken expanse covered or abounding in a main portion the majority (in pl.) the ordinary people affecting large numbers of people or things; large-scale" (Thompson, 1993, p. 838). The purpose of including so many definitions is to point out that, moving into semiotics for a moment, the sign mass is complex and extensive, truly polygenic. And extensive as the definitions of mass are, The Concise Oxford does not wholly recognize the use of "mass" by social theorists. The closest it comes is to provide an example of largescale: "(mass audience; mass action; mass murder)" (p. 838). Mc Quail (1983Quail ( , 1987Quail ( , 1994)), in each of his introductions to Mass Communication, and Tim O'Sullivan and his colleagues, writing in 1983 in Key Concepts in Communication, note what they term mass society theory of the early twentieth century. This model of industrialist/capitalist societies portrayed them as composed of elites (capitalist owners, politicians, the clergy, landowners, artists, intellectuals) and workers. # II. The Objectives of this Study Are as Follows 1. To study the basic structures of mass communication models 2. To study the significant changes in the models of mass-communication with the change of time. III. # Research Methodology The study deals with the examination of the diagrammatic models of the mass-communications it is based upon the secondary sources. We have tried touching all the aspects in present scenario with historical, philosophical and analytical approach. This research work and explains the direction of literature studied. Let us review some literature concerned with the topic of our research. A number of books deal as a text book for mass communication Wilbur Schramm's In this case the decoder would formulate an idea of the object "chair," which has been coded into speech or writing. (The nature of the idea so formulated by both encoder and decoder, by the way, is complex, not simple.) The channel is the medium through which the message is conducted, for example a human voice in air. The decoder may then let the encoder know that she or he has understood the message (through the same process, sending a message back). This might be done by means of a simple non-verbal nod of the head and a smile. Or the decoder might carry on the discourse, taking it in a new direction, for example, "Which chair?" These responses are called feedback. Any interference in the transmission of the intended message is referred to as noise. Noise may be loud background noise that makes it difficult to hear, a heavy unfamiliar accent, the snow on a television screen, static on the radio, a misplaced paragraph in a newspaper, or the imperfect encoding into words of the idea that the encoder has in his or her mind b) Socioal Models The model is shown below as it is designed to emphasize social variables. The social context within which message formulation takes place is termed the "encoding envelope." At the other end, the "decoding envelope" represents the context of ideas and understandings that the decoder brings to deciphering of the encoded message. (The nature of these envelopes of understanding and meaning exchange is the stuff of semiotics, as well as of discourse analysis, and other theories of meaning generation and communicative interaction.) In between the encoding and decoding process, the model turns away from the transmission channel and the distortion that noise introduces and focuses on the transformation of any message that any medium (or channel) introduces. At one level, to put an idea into words is not the same as painting a picture in Year an attempt to communicate the same idea. At another level, a news story on television is not the same as a newspaper write-up of the same story. Similarly, a novel differs from its movie adaptation. In fact, talking to a child, a friend, or a person in a position of authority transforms both the content of the message and the choice of media as well as the manner in which the chosen media are used. In encoding, the envelope of activities the person doing the encoding engages in includes taking into account the physical and social context as well as the person for whom the message is intended. In transmitting, the media transform the message in encouraging a certain structure in the encoding process, and they further transform it by certain elements predominant for decoding. Television emphasizes the picture. Writing emphasizes linearity and logic. # Global What can we take from this model to bring forward a social definition of communication? Viewed from a social perspective, communication is the process by which a message (content) (meaning) is encoded, transmitted, and decoded and the manner in which a message. # IV. # Result/Conclusion These changes are far more significant than people, including members of the media and media theorists generally, recognize. In a sense, these changes expose O'Sullivan and his colleagues' caveats to be an awareness of an inadequacy of the mass communication system at a particular stage in its evolution. Like Newton, before Einstein Mass communication is state-and interstateorganized transmission of intelligence, including (1) centralized mass information or entertainment dissemination (encompassing radio, television, newspapers, film, magazines, books, recorded and performed music, and advertising); (2) decentralized information or entertainment dissemination (on the World Wide Web); and (3) provision for decentralized media-based interaction on a mass scale (via, for example, telephone, the mail, e-mail, pagers, two-way radio, and fax). 1. Centralized mass information or entertainment dissemination -in shorter form, centralized mass communication -is the corporately financed industrial production of entertainment and information to large, unknown audiences by means of print, screen, audio, broadcast, audiovisual, and Internet technologies or public performance for both private and public consumption. In certain instances (e.g., broadcasting and, less often, print) it is state regulated. ![collection of selected readings which covers different aspects related to mass communication. Especially it concerns itself with the scope and purpose of communication, the factors, involved in the process and the role of language in human behavior. It defines and describes factors affecting communication and its result. It derives the multidimensional approach in studying the mass communication models. a) Shannon and Weaver's Mathematical Model of Communication:-In 1949, Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver proposed a mathematical model of communication that makes reference to the basic organization of communications technology. In this model, seen in a person, the encoder, formulates a message by, for example, putting an idea into words. Words are symbols for an idea, for example the word chair represents the object chair. The person (or device) receiving the message, the decoder, unravels the signals and, on the basis of the symbols sent, formulates meaningful content.](image-2.png "") ![Journal of Human Social ScienceVolume XII Issue W XIII Version I](image-3.png "") ![, O'Sullivan, Hartley, Saunders, & Fiske described what they saw in the context of their time. What they could not imagine was technology developing that would allow interpersonal communication on a mass scale. No one did, except Marshall McLuhan, and few understood fully or believed what McLuhan actually claimed. So, reflective of their time (and then-current usage of the term), they defined mass communication not as mass communication at all but rather as the mass distribution of information and entertainment products. Looked at now, such a definition appears to carry echoes of mass society theory: not its moral, anti-alienating force, but its view of mass communication as centralized production and widespread distribution. The past ten years of technological change have set in place communication on a mass scale. As a consequence, we are now in a position to put forward a new definition of mass communication with three different subsections. Here they are.](image-4.png "") © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (US) 20 © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (US) * Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluative consequences of violations JKBurgoon JBWalther Human Communication Research 20 1990 * Challenging the massinterpersonal communication dichotomy: Are we witnessing the emergence of an entirely new communication system SECaplan Electronic Journal of Communication 1 11 2001 * Communications,power and social order JamesCurran Culture, society and the media MichaelGurevich TonyBennett JamesCurran JaneWoollacott Toronto; Methuen 1982 * MLDefleur SBall-Rokeach Theories of mass communication New York Longman 1982 5th ed. * Love at first byte? Building interpersonal relationships over computer networks MLea RSpears Understudied relationships off the beaten track JTWood &SDuck Thousand Oaks, CA Sage 1995 * Mass communication in Canada RowlandLorimer MikeGasher 2001 Oxford University Press Don Mills, ON 4th ed. * Mass communication in Canada RowlandLorimer JeanMcnulty 1996 Oxford University Press Toronto 3rd ed. * Bridging the massinterpersonal divide:Synthesis scholarship in HCR PBO'sullivan Human Communication Research 25 1999 * The mathematicaltheory of communication CEShannon WWeaver 1949 University of Illinois Press Urbana * The Concise Oxford Dictionary DellaThompson New York Oxford University Press 1993 9th ed. * Constructions and reconstructions of self in virtual reality STurkle Playing in MUDs. Mind, Culture and Activity: An International Journal 1 1994 * Parallel lives: Working on identity in visual space STurkle constructing the self in a mediated world DRGrodin & T Lindlof Thousand Oaks, CA Sage 1996 * Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal or hyperpersonal interaction JBWalther Communication Research 23 1996