In science new words might be “invented” to name or describe new processes, discoveries, or inventions. However, for the most part, the scientific vocabulary is formed from words we use throughout our lives in everyday language. When we begin studying science we learn new meanings of words we had previously used. Sometimes these new meanings may contradict everyday meanings or seem counterintuitive. We often learn words in association with objects and situations.1 Due to these associations that students bring to class, they may not interpret the physics meaning correctly. This misinterpretation of language leads students to confusion that is sometimes classified as a misconception.2–6 Research about the semantics used in physics textbooks7–9 and the meaning of words has been done,10–12 but the problem seems to go beyond semantics.8 The linguistic relativity hypothesis, sometimes referred to as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis,1 says that “we see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.” An upshot of this hypothesis is that language may not determine thought, but it certainly may influence thought.1 We have to make students conscious of the fact that though the words may remain the same, their everyday meaning is no longer a figure of speech, but a technical meaning (physics meaning). That is, we need to change the way students may “think” about words. In spite of the close relationship between language and thought, most research does not address the semantics used in physics textbooks7–9 and the meaning of words.10–12 This study, however, will address that relationship.

1.
R.J. Sternberg and T. Ben-Zeer, Complex Cognition, The Psychology of Human Thought (Oxford University Press, New York, 2001).
2.
Arnold B. Arons, A Guide to Introductory Physics Teaching (Wiley, New York, 1990).
3.
D.
Clerk
and
M.
Rutherford
, “
Language as a confounding variable in the diagnosis of misconceptions
,”
Int. J. Sci. Educ.
22
,
703
(July
2000
).
4.
Edward F.
Redish
, “
Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics
,”
Am. J. Phys.
62
,
796
803
(September
1994
).
5.
David
Palmer
, “
The effect of context on students' reasoning about forces
,”
Int. J. Sci. Educ.
19
,
681
(June
1997
).
6.
Nicole M.
Gillespie
,
Andrea A.
diSessa
and
Jennifer
Sterly
, “
The meaning of force: Investigating students' changing understanding
,”
AAPT Announcer
31
,
102
(Winter
2001
).
7.
H. Thomas
Williams
, “
Semantics in teaching introductory physics
,”
Am. J. Phys.
67
,
670
680
(August
1999
).
8.
Jerold S.
Touger
, “
The role of language in learning physics: Beyond semantics
,”
Am. J. Phys.
68
,
306
307
(April
2000
).
9.
H. T.
Williams
, “
Words about words
,”
Am. J. Phys.
68
,
307
(April
2000
).
10.
Jerold S.
Touger
, “
When words fail us
,”
Phys. Teach.
29
,
90
95
(Feb
1991
).
11.
Daniel F.
Styer
, “
The word ‘force’
Am. J. Phys.
69
,
631
(June
2000
).
12.
Christina
Hart
, “
If the Sun burns you is that a force? Some definitional prerequisites for understanding Newton's laws
,”
Phys. Educ.
37
,
234
238
(May
2002
).
13.
David
Hestenes
,
Malcolm
Wells
, and
Gregg
Swackhamer
, “
Force Concept Inventory
,”
Phys. Teach.
30
,
141
158
(March
1992
).
14.
David P.
Maloney
, “
Conceptual competition in physics learning
,”
Int. J. Sci. Educ.
15
,
283
(March
1993
).
15.
James H. McGuire, private communication; website http://www.phy.tulane.edu/mcguire.html/.
This content is only available via PDF.
AAPT members receive access to The Physics Teacher and the American Journal of Physics as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.