Rethinking SOCIAL DISTANCE as a system: foundations and descriptions

Theodoro C. Farhat; Paulo Roberto Gonçalves-Segundo

doi:10.14393/DLv19a2025-62

Authors

Theodoro C. Farhat University of São Paulo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9646-6301
Paulo Roberto Gonçalves-Segundo University of São Paulo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5592-8098

DOI:

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

Keywords:

Systemic Functional Linguistics, Social distance, Tenor, Relationship development

Abstract

This article develops a framework within Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) to model how language choices vary according to interpersonal familiarity, or social distance. Its objectives are to propose a revised description for social distance and to outline a socio-semiotic model of relationship development. Methodologically, the study is based on five steps: (1) a critical review of previous SFL descriptions of social distance; (2) an external review integrating insights from anthropology and social psychology; (3) a “metatranslation” of these insights into SFL's descriptive formalisms; (4) the proposal of a new systemic description evaluated against explicit adequacy criteria; and (5) analytical testing through qualitative analysis of authentic texts. The study first evaluates three SFL accounts — by Poynton (1989 [1985]), Martin (1992), and Hasan (2020) — identifying key limitations, such as metafunctional inconsistency and a reliance on pre-interactional factors that compromise analytical testability from textual evidence alone. To address these issues, a new framework is proposed. Drawing on Hall's (1966) proxemics, it presents a scalar system with four options: [intimate/personal/consultative/public]. This is supported by psychological principles of interpersonal needs and interdependence. The article details how these contextual options are realized through linguistic patterns, adapting Poynton's and Martin's principles of Proliferation (the scope of available meanings) and Contraction (the degree of explicitness). Additionally, it addresses Accommodation (semiotic convergence/divergence), experientialization (the metaphorical construal of relationships as experiences), the role of (im)politeness, and contextual syndrome associations as key realizational mechanisms. The utility of the proposed framework is illustrated through an analysis of a small Brazilian Portuguese corpus. The article's second major contribution is a socio-semiotic model of relationship development, viewing it as a form of interpersonal semogenesis. It outlines five idealized stages — acquaintance, buildup, consolidation, deterioration, and ending — which are driven by three overarching socio-semiotic processes: getting closer, becoming one, and behaving as a team. This perspective integrates tenor with field to account for how relationships evolve through recurring socio-semiotic patterns.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Theodoro C. Farhat, University of 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, University of 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.

References

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.