Briley Perez, Omar Taleb, Nicole Wasserman Milan Zenciri
This study examines generational variation in the use of “terms of endearment” (ToE), focusing on how lexical choice, prosodic features, and interactional context work together to construct social meaning. Drawing on a mixed-methods ethnographic approach, we combine survey data, interviews, and participant observation to compare patterns of usage among Gen Z, Millennials, and Gen X speakers. While survey findings indicate a shift away from conventionalized terms among Gen Z, qualitative data suggest that these differences cannot be explained by vocabulary alone. Instead, younger speakers rely additionally on prosodic modulation to signal irony and playful intimacy, often in non-romantic contexts. By contrast, older cohorts maintain more stable associations between lexical form and affectionate intent. These findings suggest that ToE function as flexible pragmatic resources, with generational differences reflecting broader transformations in how intimacy and social relationships are linguistically negotiated.
Keywords: Terms of endearment, platonic, familial, Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X
[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]
Introduction and Background
Terms of endearment are an extensive category of socially meaningful linguistic resources. These everyday expressions may seem simple, but they play a key role in how people construct and interpret social relationships through language. However, despite their social and interpersonal importance of what we might affectionately call each other, there has not been extensive research into how ToE are used and which identities distinct patterns of usage might index. This gap is especially important with linguistic anthropology, which emphasizes that meaning is shaped not just by words themselves, but by context, interaction and cultural norms. Previous research on terms of address in online communication highlights several motivations behind word choice, including trendiness, humor, and intimacy building (Febrianti & Muhammad, 2021). This research focuses not on affectionate terms but rather platonic and familial situations, leaving room to explore the extension of this reasoning to romantic contexts. Studies have also found that, outside of romantic contexts, common ToE can reinforce sexist attitudes (Hildebrand et al., 2022); however, it is crucial to note that this perception within intimate relationships is less understood. Moreover, it is known that ToE typically evolve from semantic domains that are associated with “sweetness” (Grząśko, 2015), but whether preferences for semantic origin exist among different identity groups is an area yet to be critically examined. In light of this, this study examines generational differences in ToE, finding that usage reflects multiple layers of meaning and context-dependent factors, such as prosodic features and conversational partners. These patterns reflect broader cultural shifts in how intimacy is performed, with younger speakers favoring more creative and stylized language, while older speakers maintain consistent and clearly defined associations between language and emotion.
Methods
To examine generational variation in the use of “terms of endearment” (ToE), this study employed a mixed-methods ethnographic design integrating surveys, semi-structured interviews, and participant observation. Surveys were used to identify broad patterns of ToE usage across age cohorts, allowing for a comparative assessment of lexical preferences among Gen Z, Millennials, and Gen X participants. These data were complemented by qualitative interviews, which probed speakers’ perceptions of such terms, particularly whether they were interpreted as affectionate, ironic, or patronizing. Interviews also focused on the pragmatic distinctions of usage between romantic and platonic contexts, as well as how relationship length influences transitions from one semantic domain to another.
Participant observation was conducted in informal, public-facing contexts in order to capture the spontaneous deployment of endearments in naturally occurring speech. Observational attention was guided by three primary variables: the identity of the interlocutor, the situational context of interaction, and the perceived communicative purpose of the exchange (Nartey, 2013). Analytically, each recorded instance of ToE was categorized according to semantic domain (e.g., food-based, animal-based, conventional romantic terms) and subsequently coded for pragmatic function, including expressions of affection, teasing, irony, or condescension (Grząśko, 2015). Particular attention was given to observable prosodic features, such as pitch variation, pacing, and intonation, which were treated as integral components of meaning-making rather than peripheral stylistic elements. By combining quantitative trends with qualitative and interactional data, the study aims to account for both the distribution and the situated interpretation of endearment usage across generational groups.
Results and Analysis
The findings indicate a clear generational divergence in both the selection and deployment of terms of endearment, with Figure 1 illustrating distinct patterns of lexical preference across cohorts. Survey data suggest that Gen X and Millennial participants rely predominantly on conventionalized sweetness or emotion-based forms, such as “honey” and “love,” whereas Gen Z participants demonstrate comparatively lower usage of these terms and instead exhibit a marked preference for individualized or “other” categories of endearment. Notably, Gen Z respondents were the only cohort to consistently report the use of highly personalized or unconventional forms. As illustrated in Figure 1, Gen Z has moved away from traditional terms, instead favoring kinship terms like “Babe” and becoming the only generation to adopt “Unique/Other” innovative endearments.
However, interview and observational data complicate a purely lexical interpretation of these trends. While older cohorts tend to associate traditional terms with sincerity and stable relational meanings, Gen Z participants frequently characterize such expressions as outdated or potentially patronizing when used by strangers. In their place, Gen Z speakers employ internet-derived and animal-based nicknames (e.g., “pookie,” “rat,” “gremlin”), which, when considered in isolation, might appear incongruous with affectionate intent. Our interviews also revealed a boundary between romantic and platonic vocabularies, while Gen Z may use animal-based metaphors or “pookie” platonically as an ironic joke, emotion-based terms like “my love” are strictly reserved for romantic partners to avoid “confusing” or overly intimate social signals. Pragmatic functions of unconventional terms also evolve as relationships mature, as speakers shift prosody and categorical usage toward highly personalized animal-based metaphors and/or inside jokes to further reindex relational intimacy.
Crucially, observational evidence suggests that the meaning of these terms is not primarily encoded in their lexical content but emerges through prosodic modulation and interactional context. Gen Z speakers were observed to use comparatively flattened intonation, slowed pacing, and exaggerated pitch shifts when deploying such terms, thereby signaling irony and playful self-awareness. These prosodic features function as “metapragmatic cues,” reframing ostensibly abrasive or nonsensical labels as markers of intimacy, often within explicitly non-romantic or platonic interactions, consistent with prior accounts of “pragmatic meaning-making” in discourse (Nartey, 2013; Grząśko, 2015). Millennial participants, however, appear to occupy an intermediate position, dynamically modulating both lexical choice and prosody in accordance with relational context, thus moving along a continuum between sincerity and irony. By contrast, Gen X speakers demonstrate more stable prosodic patterns and rely on conventional terms that reinforce clearer distinctions between romantic and platonic address.
Across all cohorts, respondents reported little attention to the literal semantic content of endearments, further supporting the claim that ToE operate primarily as pragmatic and relational tools in a process referred to as “semantic bleaching” (Grząśko, 2015). Thus, the exact interpretation, whether conveying intimacy or condescension, depends on various contextual variables like the nature of the relationship, interlocutor, vocal delivery, and level of familiarity. Taken together, these findings suggest that generational differences in ToE usage are best understood not as shifts in vocabulary alone, but as broader transformations in how social meaning is negotiated through prosody, context, and interactional intent.
Discussion and Conclusion
These patterns highlight broader implications for how language expresses intimacy and social relationships. Our research suggests that ToE function as socially sensitive linguistic resources that speakers adjust depending on contextual cues such as tone, audience, and relational boundaries. While the respective sample was limited and skewed to have an overrepresentation of Gen Z, our findings indicate that generational differences also reflect broader cultural influences, particularly the circulation of playful or “meme-based” language among younger speakers in digital spaces. This suggests that expressions of affection are not fixed meanings within words themselves, but flexible linguistic practices that speakers use to negotiate intimacy, identity, and social expectations in everyday interaction. In this sense, the use of ToE reflects broader cultural expectations about how affection is expressed, while also demonstrating how these expectations shift across generations. More broadly, these patterns raise questions about what is socially and emotionally activated when individuals are referenced by something other than their given name. Overall, terms of endearment reveal how everyday language actively constructs and reflects our social relationships, a process shaped and guided by identity categories such as generational belonging, which influence how affection, intimacy and social norms are expressed in interaction.
References
Febrianti, Y., & Muhammad Ridha Al Auwal, T. (n.d.). Millennials’ use of terms of endearment in casual conversation in Digital Communication | Atlantis press. Atlantis Press. https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/icstms-20/125960712
Grząśko, A. (2015). On the semantic history of selected terms of endearment. Linguistics Beyond and Within, 1, 104–118.
Hildebrand, L. K., et al. (2022). Honey, sweetie, dear: Terms of endearment communicate, reflect, and reinforce sexism toward adult women. Sex Roles, 87(3), 185–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01311-3
Nartey, M. (2013). A speech act analysis of status updates on Facebook: The case of Ghanaian university students. UWE Bristol Repository. https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/8539224/a-speech-act-analysis-of-status-updates-on-facebook-the-case-of-ghanaian-university-students
[/expander_maker]