Repensando la distancia social como sistema: fundamentos y descripciones.

foundations and descriptions

Autores/as

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14393/DLv19a2025-62

Palabras clave:

Lingüística Sistémico-Funcional, Distancia social, Relaciones interactanciales, Desarrollo relacional

Resumen

Anclado en la Lingüística Sistémico-Funcional (LSF), este artículo desarrolla un modelo sobre cómo se ajustan las elecciones lingüísticas según la familiaridad entre los interactuantes, fenómeno conocido como DISTANCIA SOCIAL. Hay dos objetivos principales: primero, proponer una descripción revisada de la DISTANCIA SOCIAL que mejore su coherencia teórica y aplicabilidad analítica; segundo, esbozar una perspectiva sociosemiótica sobre procesos de desarrollo relacional. El estudio comienza con una evaluación de tres propuestas de la LSF para la DISTANCIA SOCIAL — las de Poynton (1989), Martin (1992) y Hasan (2020). Aunque reconoce sus aportes, se identifican limitaciones importantes basadas en criterios de adecuación, incluyendo problemas de consistencia metafuncional — variables del campo invaden el terreno de las relaciones — y una dependencia de factores pre-interaccionales como frecuencia y variedad de contactos previos, comprometiendo la verificabilidad analítica de las descripciones a partir solo de evidencias textuales. Para enfrentar estas limitaciones, se desarrolla un nuevo modelo fundamentado en una síntesis interdisciplinaria de contribuciones de la antropología y la psicología social. A partir de la proxémica de Hall (1966), el artículo propone un sistema escalonado de DISTANCIA SOCIAL con cuatro opciones principales: [íntima/personal/consultiva/pública]. Esta descripción está sustentada por principios psicológicos sobre necesidades interpersonales e interdependencia. El artículo detalla cómo estas opciones se realizan mediante patrones lingüísticos, adaptando los principios de Poynton y Martin de Proliferación (alcance de significados disponibles) y Contracción (grado de explicitud). Además, aborda la acomodación (convergencia/divergencia semiótica), la experiencialización (construcción de relaciones como experiencias), el papel de la (im)polidez y asociaciones con síndromes contextuales como mecanismos clave de realización. La utilidad de la descripción se ilustra con un análisis de un texto auténtico en portugués brasileño. La segunda contribución del artículo es un modelo sociosemiótico de desarrollo relacional, concebido como una forma de semogénesis interpersonal. El modelo describe cinco etapas idealizadas — aproximación, base, consolidación, deterioro y cierre — impulsadas por tres procesos sociosemióticos centrales: acercarse, convertirse en uno solo y actuar como un equipo. Esta perspectiva integra las relaciones y el campo para describir cómo las relaciones evolucionan mediante patrones recurrentes de interacción.

Descargas

Los datos de descarga aún no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

  • Theodoro C. Farhat, Universidade de São Paulo

    Holds a bachelor's degree in Portuguese and Linguistics from the University of São Paulo, where he also completed a master's degree focusing on the description of the contextual parameter of tenor. Currently, during his doctoral research, he is developing a Systemic Functional Model of Argumentation. 

  • Paulo Roberto Gonçalves-Segundo, Universidade de São Paulo

    Holds a degree in Portuguese from the University of São Paulo (USP), Brazil, where he also completed his PhD in 2011. Since 2013, he has been a tenured Professor in the Department of Classical and Vernacular Languages at USP.

Referencias

AGNEW, C. R. et al. Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, v. 74, n. 4, p. 939-954, 1998. DOI https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.4.939

ALTMAN, L.; TAYLOR, D. Social Penetration. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1973.

ARGYLE, M. The psychology of interpersonal behaviour. London: Penguin, 1994.

BAUMEISTER, R. F.; LEARY, M. R. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, v. 117, n. 3, p. 497-529, 1995. DOI https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.117.3.497

BERSCHEID, E.; SNYDER, M.; OMOTO, A. M. The Relationship Closeness Inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, v. 57, n. 5, p. 792-807, 1989. DOI https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.57.5.792

BRINBERG, M.; RAM, N. Do new romantic couples use more similar language over time? Evidence from intensive longitudinal text messages. Journal of Communication, v. 71, n. 3, p. 454-477, 2021. DOI https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab012

BROWN, P.; LEVINSON, S. C. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987[1978]. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085

CARPENTER, A.; GREENE, K. Social penetration theory. In: The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2016. p. 1-5. DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic160

CICIRELLI, V. G. Sibling relationships in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Marriage and the Family, v. 56, n. 1, p. 7–20, 1994. DOI https://doi.org/10.2307/352697

DUNBAR, R. I. M. Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1996.

EGGINS, S.; SLADE, D. Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell, 1997.

FARHAT, T. C. Uma nova descrição sistêmico-funcional das relações interactanciais. 491f. Dissertação (Mestrado) – Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas. Universidade de São Paulo. São Paulo. 2025.

FARHAT, T. C. Intimidade artificial: explorações contextuais em produções artificiais. Domínios de Lingu@gem, v. 18, p. e1863, 2024. DOI https://doi.org/10.14393/DLv18a2024-63

FIGUEREDO, G. P. Introdução ao perfil metafuncional do português brasileiro. 2011. Tese (Doutorado em Linguística Aplicada) – Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 2011.

GILES, H.; OGAY, T. Communication Accommodation Theory. In: WHALEY, B. B.; SAMTER, W. (eds.). Explaining communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007. p. 293–310.

HALL, E. T. The Hidden Dimension. New York: Anchor Books, 1966.

HALLIDAY, M. A. K. Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language. London: Edward Arnold, 1975. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-443701-2.50025-1

HALLIDAY, M. A. K. The Language of Early Childhood. London/New York: Continuum, 2004. DOI https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474212007

HALLIDAY, M. A. K. Methods – techniques – problems. In: HALLIDAY, M. A. K.; WEBSTER, J. (eds.). Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum International, 2009. p. 59-86.

HALLIDAY, M. A. K.; MARTIN, J. R. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer, 1993.

HALLIDAY, M. A. K.; MATTHIESSEN, C. M. I. M. Construing Experience Through Meaning: a Language-based Approach to Cognition. London: Continuum, 2006 [1999].

HALLIDAY, M. A. K.; MATTHIESSEN, C. M. I. M. Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4. ed. New York/London: Routledge, 2014. DOI https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771

HASAN, R. Text in the systemic-functional model. In: DRESSLER, W. U. (ed.). Current Trends in Text Linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1978. p. 228–246. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110853759.228

HASAN, R. Speaking with reference to context. In: GHADESSY, M. (ed.) Text and Context in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999. p. 219-328. DOI https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.169.11has

HASAN, R. Choice, System, Realisation: Describing Language as Meaning Potential. In: FONTAINE, L.; BARTLETT, T.; O'GRADY, G. (ed.). Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. p. 269-299. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139583077.018

HASAN, R. Towards a paradigmatic description of context: systems, metafunctions, and semantics. Functional Linguistics, v. 1, n. 1, p. 1-54, 2014. DOI https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-014-0009-y

HASAN, R. Tenor: Rethinking interactant relations. Language, Context and Text, v. 2, n. 2, p. 213–333, 2020. DOI https://doi.org/10.1075/langct.00029.has

IRELAND, M. E. et al. Language Style Matching Predicts Relationship Initiation and Stability. Psychological Science, v. 22, n. 1, p. 39–44, 2011. DOI https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610392928

IRVINE, J. T. Formality and informality in communicative events. American Anthropologist, v. 81, n. 4, p. 773-790, 1979. DOI https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1979.81.4.02a00020

JACKSON-DWYER, D. Interpersonal Relationships. London/New York: Routledge, 2013. DOI https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203797853

KELTNER, D.; GRUENFELD, D. H.; ANDERSON, C. Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, v. 110, n. 2, p. 265-284, 2003. DOI https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265

KNAPP, M. L.; VANGELISTI, A. L.; CAUGHLIN, J. P. Interpersonal communication and human relationships. London: Pearson, 2014.

KNIGHT, N. K. Wrinkling complexity: concepts of identity and affiliation in humour. In: BEDNAREK, M.; MARTIN, J. R. (ed.). New Discourse on Language: Functional Perspectives on Multimodality, Identity, and Affiliation. London: Continuum, 2010. p. 35-58.

LAM, M. Interfacing field with tenor: Hasan's notion of personal distance. In: BOWCHER, W. L.; LIANG, J. Y. (eds.). Society in Language, Language in Society: Essays in Honour of Ruqaiya Hasan. New York: Palgrave, 2016. p. 206-226. DOI https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137402868_9

LEECH, G. N. The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. DOI https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001

LEVINGER, G. Toward the analysis of close relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, v. 16, n. 6, p. 510–544, 1980. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90056-6

MARKUS, H. R.; KITAYAMA, S. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, v. 98, n. 2, p. 224-253, 1991. DOI https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.98.2.224

MARTIN, J. R. English Text: System and Structure. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1992. DOI https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59

MARTIN, J. R.; WHITE, P. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. DOI https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910

MATTHIESSEN, C. M. I. M. Frequency profiles of some basic grammatical systems: an interim report. In: THOMPSON, G.; HUNSTON, S. (eds.). System and corpus: exploring connections. London: Equinox, 2006. p. 103-142.

MATTHIESSEN, C. M. I. M. Multisemiosis and context-based register typology. In: VENTOLA, E.; GUIJARRO, A. J. M. (eds.). The World Told and the World Shown. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. p. 11-38.

MATTHIESSEN, C. M. I. M. Register in the round: registerial cartography. Functional Linguistics, v. 2, p. 1-48, 2015. DOI https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-015-0015-8

MATTHIESSEN, C. M. I. M.; TERUYA, K. Systemic Functional Linguistics: A Complete Guide. London: Routledge, 2024. DOI https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315675718

MATTHIESSEN, C. M. I. M.; WANG, B.; MA, Y. Interview with Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen: On Translation Studies (Part II). Linguistics & the Human Sciences, v. 13, n. 3, p. 338-358, 2017. DOI https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.37423

MCPHERSON, M.; SMITH-LOVIN, L.; COOK, J. M. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, v. 27, n. 1, p. 415-444, 2001. DOI https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415

NUCKOLLS, C. W. E. Siblings in South Asia. New York: The Guilford Press, 1993.

PAINTER, C. Developing attitude: An ontogenetic perspective on APPRAISAL. Text & Talk, v. 23, n. 2, p. 183-209, 2003. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.008

POYNTON, C. Language and Gender. 2. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989 [1985].

REGAN, P. Close relationships. London: Routledge, 2011. DOI https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203834749

SEGAL, M. W. Alphabet and attraction: An unobtrusive measure of the effect of propinquity in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, v. 30, p. 654–657, 1974. DOI https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037446

SOROKOWSKA, A. et al. Preferred interpersonal distances: A global comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, v. 48, n. 4, p. 577-592, 2017.

THIBAUT, J. W.; KELLEY, H. H. The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley, 1959.

THOMAS, J. A. The language of power: Towards a dynamic pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 9, n. 6, p. 765-783, 1985. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(85)90003-7

TREVARTHEN, C. Communication and cooperation in early infancy. In: BULLOWA, M. (ed.). Before speech. London: CUP, 1979. p. 321-347.

Descargas

Publicado

2025-11-13

Número

Sección

Artículos

Cómo citar

FARHAT, Theodoro C.; GONÇALVES-SEGUNDO, Paulo Roberto. Repensando la distancia social como sistema: fundamentos y descripciones.: foundations and descriptions. Domínios de Lingu@gem, Uberlândia, v. 19, p. e019062, 2025. DOI: 10.14393/DLv19a2025-62. Disponível em: https://seer.ufu.br/index.php/dominiosdelinguagem/article/view/78760. Acesso em: 5 dec. 2025.