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.