Stepfamily Address Terms: “Sometimes They Mean Something and Sometimes They Don't.”∗

∗This paper was presented to the Interpersonal and Small Group Interest Group at the Central States Communication Association Annual Convention, Indianapolis, IN, April 2006. It received a Top Four Paper Award.

Abstract

A seemingly rudimentary, but potentially significant and understudied communicative aspect of stepfamily development involves the choice of terms family members use to address one another. Ganong and Coleman (2004) argued that appropriate names for stepfamily relationships do not exist. Anthropologists and sociolinguists have long maintained, however, that the nature of personal relationships can be revealed through the use and choice of personal address terms (Beidelman, 1963; Emihovich, 1981). Therefore, in the present study we examined the use and meaning of stepfamily address terms in an attempt to understand how stepchildren use them and make sense of relational identities as well as potentially difficult stepfamily transitions. Results of 39 in-depth interviews suggest that the variety of address terms may be grouped according to formal, familiar, and familial terms and suggest stepchildren regularly engage in code-switching depending on their audience. Stepchildren reported using address terms to signify solidarity, separateness, and/or to manage the balance of stepfamily life. Four clusters of stepchildren types emerged based on their use of address terms, including Isolators, Gatekeepers, Validators, and Jugglers. Finally, meanings of stepfamily address term stories and advice about the use of terms are also discussed in the findings.

Notes

∗This paper was presented to the Interpersonal and Small Group Interest Group at the Central States Communication Association Annual Convention, Indianapolis, IN, April 2006. It received a Top Four Paper Award.

¹As discussed in the results of Research Question 2, some stepchildren reported on more than one way to manage family identity through address term use. For the follow-up analyses on stepchild clusters, however, we assigned each participant one primary code for managing identity. In order to most accurately represent the data, we created decision rules for assigning one code based on the identity management strategy that dominated the interview. This procedure allowed us to accurately represent participants' experiences while also meaningfully synthesizing the data into common stepchild clusters.