meaning hypothesis words

• Dictionaries home
• American English
• Collocations
• German-English
• Grammar home
• Practical English Usage
• Learn & Practise Grammar (Beta)
• Word Lists home
• My Word Lists
• Recent additions
• Resources home
• Text Checker

Definition of hypothesis noun from the Oxford Advanced American Dictionary

• formulate/advance a theory/hypothesis
• build/construct/create/develop a simple/theoretical/mathematical model
• develop/establish/provide/use a theoretical/conceptual framework/an algorithm
• advance/argue/develop the thesis that…
• explore an idea/a concept/a hypothesis
• make a prediction/an inference
• base a prediction/your calculations on something
• investigate/evaluate/accept/challenge/reject a theory/hypothesis/model
• design an experiment/a questionnaire/a study/a test
• do research/an experiment/an analysis
• make observations/calculations
• take/record measurements
• carry out/conduct/perform an experiment/a test/a longitudinal study/observations/clinical trials
• run an experiment/a simulation/clinical trials
• repeat an experiment/a test/an analysis
• replicate a study/the results/the findings
• observe/study/examine/investigate/assess a pattern/a process/a behavior
• fund/support the research/project/study
• seek/provide/get/secure funding for research
• collect/gather/extract data/information
• yield data/evidence/similar findings/the same results
• analyze/examine the data/soil samples/a specimen
• consider/compare/interpret the results/findings
• fit the data/model
• confirm/support/verify a prediction/a hypothesis/the results/the findings
• prove a conjecture/hypothesis/theorem
• draw/make/reach the same conclusions
• read/review the records/literature
• describe/report an experiment/a study
• present/publish/summarize the results/findings
• present/publish/read/review/cite a paper in a scientific journal

Join our community to access the latest language learning and assessment tips from Oxford University Press!

• 2 [ uncountable ] guesses and ideas that are not based on certain knowledge synonym speculation It would be pointless to engage in hypothesis before we have the facts.

Other results

Nearby words.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples

How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples

Published on May 6, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested by scientific research. If you want to test a relationship between two or more variables, you need to write hypotheses before you start your experiment or data collection .

Example: Hypothesis

Daily apple consumption leads to fewer doctor’s visits.

Table of contents

What is a hypothesis, developing a hypothesis (with example), hypothesis examples, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about writing hypotheses.

A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.

A hypothesis is not just a guess – it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).

Variables in hypotheses

Hypotheses propose a relationship between two or more types of variables .

• An independent variable is something the researcher changes or controls.
• A dependent variable is something the researcher observes and measures.

If there are any control variables , extraneous variables , or confounding variables , be sure to jot those down as you go to minimize the chances that research bias  will affect your results.

In this example, the independent variable is exposure to the sun – the assumed cause . The dependent variable is the level of happiness – the assumed effect .

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Step 1. ask a question.

Writing a hypothesis begins with a research question that you want to answer. The question should be focused, specific, and researchable within the constraints of your project.

Step 2. Do some preliminary research

Your initial answer to the question should be based on what is already known about the topic. Look for theories and previous studies to help you form educated assumptions about what your research will find.

At this stage, you might construct a conceptual framework to ensure that you’re embarking on a relevant topic . This can also help you identify which variables you will study and what you think the relationships are between them. Sometimes, you’ll have to operationalize more complex constructs.

Step 3. Formulate your hypothesis

Now you should have some idea of what you expect to find. Write your initial answer to the question in a clear, concise sentence.

4. Refine your hypothesis

You need to make sure your hypothesis is specific and testable. There are various ways of phrasing a hypothesis, but all the terms you use should have clear definitions, and the hypothesis should contain:

• The relevant variables
• The specific group being studied
• The predicted outcome of the experiment or analysis

5. Phrase your hypothesis in three ways

To identify the variables, you can write a simple prediction in  if…then form. The first part of the sentence states the independent variable and the second part states the dependent variable.

In academic research, hypotheses are more commonly phrased in terms of correlations or effects, where you directly state the predicted relationship between variables.

If you are comparing two groups, the hypothesis can state what difference you expect to find between them.

6. Write a null hypothesis

If your research involves statistical hypothesis testing , you will also have to write a null hypothesis . The null hypothesis is the default position that there is no association between the variables. The null hypothesis is written as H 0 , while the alternative hypothesis is H 1 or H a .

• H 0 : The number of lectures attended by first-year students has no effect on their final exam scores.
• H 1 : The number of lectures attended by first-year students has a positive effect on their final exam scores.

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

A hypothesis is not just a guess — it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).

Null and alternative hypotheses are used in statistical hypothesis testing . The null hypothesis of a test always predicts no effect or no relationship between variables, while the alternative hypothesis states your research prediction of an effect or relationship.

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 15, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/hypothesis/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, construct validity | definition, types, & examples, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, operationalization | a guide with examples, pros & cons, what is your plagiarism score.

Dictionary Definition of 'hypothesis'

An educated guess or a proposed explanation for a phenomenon or a pattern of observations. "The experiment yielded results that supported the initial hypothesis."

Detailed Meaning of 'hypothesis'

It is a statement that can be tested through scientific experimentation or further observation. In scientific research, a hypothesis is used as a starting point for an investigation, and it serves as a basis for designing experiments and collecting data to either support or disprove it. A hypothesis typically consists of two parts: the independent variable, which is the factor being tested, and the dependent variable, which is the effect that is being observed. The hypothesis states the expected relationship between the two variables. For example, if a scientist wants to test the effect of a new drug on blood pressure, the independent variable would be the drug and the dependent variable would be the blood pressure. The hypothesis in this case would be "The new drug will lower blood pressure" A hypothesis is a crucial step in the scientific method as it guides the research and helps to focus on a specific question or problem. The results of the research and experimentation can support or disprove the hypothesis, and it can lead to new discoveries and knowledge. In summary, a hypothesis is an educated guess or proposed explanation for a phenomenon or a pattern of observations, it's a statement that can be tested through scientific experimentation or further observation, it's a crucial step in the scientific method that guides the research and helps to focus on a specific question or problem.

History and Etymology of 'hypothesis'

The noun 'hypothesis' draws its linguistic lineage from the combination of two ancient Greek elements. The first part, 'hypo,' originates from the Greek word 'hupo,' meaning 'under' or 'beneath.' The second component, 'thesis,' derives from 'tithēmi,' meaning 'to place' or 'to put forth.' In the context of scientific inquiry and philosophical discourse, the term 'hypothesis' embodies the notion of putting forth an educated guess or proposition that lies beneath the surface of empirical observation. It signifies a preliminary and testable explanation for a phenomenon or a pattern of observations. Thus, the etymology of 'hypothesis' underscores its foundational role in the systematic process of scientific inquiry, where ideas are posited as a starting point for further investigation and analysis.

Examples of 'hypothesis' in a Sentence

1. The scientist's hypothesis about the origins of the universe sparked a lively debate among colleagues. 2. The study aimed to confirm or refute the hypothesis that caffeine enhances athletic performance. 3. The researchers gathered data to support their hypothesis on the relationship between sleep and memory. 4. The hypothesis proposed that increased levels of pollution would lead to a decline in air quality. 5. The hypothesis suggested that exposure to violent media would lead to increased aggression in children. 6. The scientists revised their hypothesis based on the new evidence they gathered. 7. The study failed to confirm the hypothesis, leading the researchers to reconsider their approach. 8. The hypothesis provided a framework for the investigation, guiding the research process. 9. The scientist presented a compelling hypothesis that challenged conventional wisdom. 10. The hypothesis proposed that higher levels of stress would negatively affect decision-making abilities. 11. The researcher's hypothesis about the effects of music on productivity generated significant interest. 12. The study aimed to test the hypothesis that a specific diet would improve cardiovascular health. 13. The scientist formulated a hypothesis to test in the laboratory. 14. Her hypothesis about the market trends proved accurate. 15. We need evidence to support or refute this hypothesis. 16. The hypothesis was the starting point for the research project. 17. The hypothesis suggests a link between two variables. 18. He proposed an intriguing hypothesis for the mysterious phenomenon. 19. The hypothesis was based on years of careful observation. 20. The team's hypothesis challenged established scientific beliefs. 21. To validate the hypothesis, experiments were meticulously designed. 22. The hypothesis explained the unexpected results of the study. 23. Researchers are now testing the hypothesis with real-world data. 24. The success of the mission hinged on the accuracy of the initial hypothesis.

32 French Words and Phrases Commonly Used in the English Language

18 Latin Words and Phrases Commonly Used in the English Language

​20 Fascinating English Words Derived from People and Places

30 Delicious Words: Exploring the Rich Vocabulary of Food and Drink and Its Cultural Impact

Exploring the Language of the Heart: Navigating Love and Attraction Through Words

Exploring the Language of Laughter: The Power and Evolution of Comedy's Rich Vocabulary

The Power of Words: How Vocabulary Shapes Your Career and Income

Mastering the Language of Wealth: A Comprehensive Guide to the Vocabulary of Money

Mastering Business English Vocabulary: Unlocking Professional Success and Effective Communication

Quiz Categories Containing 'hypothesis'

Multiple Choice

Opposite Words

Same / different

Spelling Bee

eb68db_80f17f7a153340fd98f74a39f7c06f32.mp3

What Is A Research (Scientific) Hypothesis? A plain-language explainer + examples

By:  Derek Jansen (MBA)  | Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2020

If you’re new to the world of research, or it’s your first time writing a dissertation or thesis, you’re probably noticing that the words “research hypothesis” and “scientific hypothesis” are used quite a bit, and you’re wondering what they mean in a research context .

“Hypothesis” is one of those words that people use loosely, thinking they understand what it means. However, it has a very specific meaning within academic research. So, it’s important to understand the exact meaning before you start hypothesizing. 

Research Hypothesis 101

• What is a hypothesis ?
• What is a research hypothesis (scientific hypothesis)?
• Requirements for a research hypothesis
• Definition of a research hypothesis
• The null hypothesis

What is a hypothesis?

Let’s start with the general definition of a hypothesis (not a research hypothesis or scientific hypothesis), according to the Cambridge Dictionary:

Hypothesis: an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proved.

In other words, it’s a statement that provides an explanation for why or how something works, based on facts (or some reasonable assumptions), but that has not yet been specifically tested . For example, a hypothesis might look something like this:

Hypothesis: sleep impacts academic performance.

This statement predicts that academic performance will be influenced by the amount and/or quality of sleep a student engages in – sounds reasonable, right? It’s based on reasonable assumptions , underpinned by what we currently know about sleep and health (from the existing literature). So, loosely speaking, we could call it a hypothesis, at least by the dictionary definition.

But that’s not good enough…

Unfortunately, that’s not quite sophisticated enough to describe a research hypothesis (also sometimes called a scientific hypothesis), and it wouldn’t be acceptable in a dissertation, thesis or research paper . In the world of academic research, a statement needs a few more criteria to constitute a true research hypothesis .

What is a research hypothesis?

A research hypothesis (also called a scientific hypothesis) is a statement about the expected outcome of a study (for example, a dissertation or thesis). To constitute a quality hypothesis, the statement needs to have three attributes – specificity , clarity and testability .

Let’s take a look at these more closely.

Need a helping hand?

Hypothesis Essential #1: Specificity & Clarity

A good research hypothesis needs to be extremely clear and articulate about both what’ s being assessed (who or what variables are involved ) and the expected outcome (for example, a difference between groups, a relationship between variables, etc.).

Let’s stick with our sleepy students example and look at how this statement could be more specific and clear.

Hypothesis: Students who sleep at least 8 hours per night will, on average, achieve higher grades in standardised tests than students who sleep less than 8 hours a night.

As you can see, the statement is very specific as it identifies the variables involved (sleep hours and test grades), the parties involved (two groups of students), as well as the predicted relationship type (a positive relationship). There’s no ambiguity or uncertainty about who or what is involved in the statement, and the expected outcome is clear.

Contrast that to the original hypothesis we looked at – “Sleep impacts academic performance” – and you can see the difference. “Sleep” and “academic performance” are both comparatively vague , and there’s no indication of what the expected relationship direction is (more sleep or less sleep). As you can see, specificity and clarity are key.

Hypothesis Essential #2: Testability (Provability)

A statement must be testable to qualify as a research hypothesis. In other words, there needs to be a way to prove (or disprove) the statement. If it’s not testable, it’s not a hypothesis – simple as that.

For example, consider the hypothesis we mentioned earlier:

Hypothesis: Students who sleep at least 8 hours per night will, on average, achieve higher grades in standardised tests than students who sleep less than 8 hours a night.  

We could test this statement by undertaking a quantitative study involving two groups of students, one that gets 8 or more hours of sleep per night for a fixed period, and one that gets less. We could then compare the standardised test results for both groups to see if there’s a statistically significant difference. 

Again, if you compare this to the original hypothesis we looked at – “Sleep impacts academic performance” – you can see that it would be quite difficult to test that statement, primarily because it isn’t specific enough. How much sleep? By who? What type of academic performance?

So, remember the mantra – if you can’t test it, it’s not a hypothesis 🙂

Defining A Research Hypothesis

You’re still with us? Great! Let’s recap and pin down a clear definition of a hypothesis.

A research hypothesis (or scientific hypothesis) is a statement about an expected relationship between variables, or explanation of an occurrence, that is clear, specific and testable.

So, when you write up hypotheses for your dissertation or thesis, make sure that they meet all these criteria. If you do, you’ll not only have rock-solid hypotheses but you’ll also ensure a clear focus for your entire research project.

What about the null hypothesis?

You may have also heard the terms null hypothesis , alternative hypothesis, or H-zero thrown around. At a simple level, the null hypothesis is the counter-proposal to the original hypothesis.

For example, if the hypothesis predicts that there is a relationship between two variables (for example, sleep and academic performance), the null hypothesis would predict that there is no relationship between those variables.

At a more technical level, the null hypothesis proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations and that any differences are due to chance alone.

And there you have it – hypotheses in a nutshell. 

If you have any questions, be sure to leave a comment below and we’ll do our best to help you. If you need hands-on help developing and testing your hypotheses, consider our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the research journey.

Psst… there’s more (for free)

This post is part of our dissertation mini-course, which covers everything you need to get started with your dissertation, thesis or research project. 

You Might Also Like:

16 Comments

Very useful information. I benefit more from getting more information in this regard.

Very great insight,educative and informative. Please give meet deep critics on many research data of public international Law like human rights, environment, natural resources, law of the sea etc

In a book I read a distinction is made between null, research, and alternative hypothesis. As far as I understand, alternative and research hypotheses are the same. Can you please elaborate? Best Afshin

This is a self explanatory, easy going site. I will recommend this to my friends and colleagues.

Very good definition. How can I cite your definition in my thesis? Thank you. Is nul hypothesis compulsory in a research?

It’s a counter-proposal to be proven as a rejection

Please what is the difference between alternate hypothesis and research hypothesis?

It is a very good explanation. However, it limits hypotheses to statistically tasteable ideas. What about for qualitative researches or other researches that involve quantitative data that don’t need statistical tests?

In qualitative research, one typically uses propositions, not hypotheses.

could you please elaborate it more

I’ve benefited greatly from these notes, thank you.

This is very helpful

well articulated ideas are presented here, thank you for being reliable sources of information

Excellent. Thanks for being clear and sound about the research methodology and hypothesis (quantitative research)

I have only a simple question regarding the null hypothesis. – Is the null hypothesis (Ho) known as the reversible hypothesis of the alternative hypothesis (H1? – How to test it in academic research?

this is very important note help me much more

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• What Is Research Methodology? Simple Definition (With Examples) - Grad Coach - […] Contrasted to this, a quantitative methodology is typically used when the research aims and objectives are confirmatory in nature. For example,…

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Definition of 'hypothesis'

Video: pronunciation of hypothesis

hypothesis in American English

Hypothesis in british english, examples of 'hypothesis' in a sentence hypothesis, related word partners hypothesis, trends of hypothesis.

View usage over: Since Exist Last 10 years Last 50 years Last 100 years Last 300 years

In other languages hypothesis

• American English : hypothesis / haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs /
• Brazilian Portuguese : hipótese
• Chinese : 假设
• European Spanish : hipótesis
• French : hypothèse
• German : Hypothese
• Italian : ipotesi
• Japanese : 仮説
• Korean : 가설
• European Portuguese : hipótese
• Spanish : hipótesis
• Thai : สมมุติฐาน

Browse alphabetically hypothesis

• hypothermia
• hypothermic
• hypothesis states
• hypothesis suggests
• hypothesis testing
• All ENGLISH words that begin with 'H'

Related terms of hypothesis

• Gaia hypothesis
• null hypothesis
• initial hypothesis
• View more related words

Quick word challenge

Quiz Review

Score: 0 / 5

Wordle Helper

Scrabble Tools

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

hypothesize

Definition of hypothesize

intransitive verb

transitive verb

• hypothecate

Examples of hypothesize in a Sentence

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'hypothesize.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

1738, in the meaning defined at intransitive sense

Dictionary Entries Near hypothesize

hypothetical

Cite this Entry

“Hypothesize.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesize. Accessed 16 Apr. 2024.

Kids Definition

Kids definition of hypothesize, more from merriam-webster on hypothesize.

Britannica English: Translation of hypothesize for Arabic Speakers

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day, inalienable.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

Your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, more commonly mispronounced words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), absent letters that are heard anyway, popular in wordplay, a great big list of bread words, the words of the week - apr. 12, 10 scrabble words without any vowels, 12 more bird names that sound like insults (and sometimes are), 9 superb owl words, games & quizzes.

User Preferences

Content preview.

Arcu felis bibendum ut tristique et egestas quis:

• Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris
• Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate
• Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident

Keyboard Shortcuts

5.2 - writing hypotheses.

The first step in conducting a hypothesis test is to write the hypothesis statements that are going to be tested. For each test you will have a null hypothesis (\(H_0\)) and an alternative hypothesis (\(H_a\)).

When writing hypotheses there are three things that we need to know: (1) the parameter that we are testing (2) the direction of the test (non-directional, right-tailed or left-tailed), and (3) the value of the hypothesized parameter.

• At this point we can write hypotheses for a single mean (\(\mu\)), paired means(\(\mu_d\)), a single proportion (\(p\)), the difference between two independent means (\(\mu_1-\mu_2\)), the difference between two proportions (\(p_1-p_2\)), a simple linear regression slope (\(\beta\)), and a correlation (\(\rho\)). 
• The research question will give us the information necessary to determine if the test is two-tailed (e.g., "different from," "not equal to"), right-tailed (e.g., "greater than," "more than"), or left-tailed (e.g., "less than," "fewer than").
• The research question will also give us the hypothesized parameter value. This is the number that goes in the hypothesis statements (i.e., \(\mu_0\) and \(p_0\)). For the difference between two groups, regression, and correlation, this value is typically 0.

Hypotheses are always written in terms of population parameters (e.g., \(p\) and \(\mu\)).  The tables below display all of the possible hypotheses for the parameters that we have learned thus far. Note that the null hypothesis always includes the equality (i.e., =).

Words and phrases

Personal account.

• Access or purchase personal subscriptions
• Get our newsletter
• Save searches
• Set display preferences

Institutional access

Sign in with library card

Sign in with username / password

Recommend to your librarian

Institutional account management

Sign in as administrator on Oxford Academic

hypothesis noun

• Hide all quotations

What does the noun hypothesis mean?

There are seven meanings listed in OED's entry for the noun hypothesis , two of which are labelled obsolete. See ‘Meaning & use’ for definitions, usage, and quotation evidence.

Entry status

OED is undergoing a continuous programme of revision to modernize and improve definitions. This entry has not yet been fully revised.

How common is the noun hypothesis ?

How is the noun hypothesis pronounced, british english, u.s. english, where does the noun hypothesis come from.

Earliest known use

The earliest known use of the noun hypothesis is in the late 1500s.

OED's earliest evidence for hypothesis is from 1596, in the writing of Earl of Essex.

hypothesis is a borrowing from Greek.

Etymons: Greek ὑπόθεσις .

Nearby entries

• hypothecarious, adj. 1726–
• hypothecary, adj. 1656–
• hypothecate, v. 1693–
• hypothecation, n. 1681–
• hypothecative, adj. 1856–
• hypothecator, n. 1828–
• hypothecium, n. 1866–
• hypothenar, adj. 1706–
• hypothermia, n. 1886–
• hypothermic, adj. 1898–
• hypothesis, n. 1596–
• hypothesist, n. 1788–
• hypothesize, v. 1738–
• hypothesizer, n. 1833–
• hypothetic, adj. & n. a1680–
• hypothetical, adj. & n. 1588–
• hypothetically, adv. 1628–
• hypothetico-deductive, adj. 1912–
• hypothetico-deductively, adv. 1953–
• hypothetico-disjunctive, adj. & n. a1856–
• hypothetist, n. 1852–

Thank you for visiting Oxford English Dictionary

To continue reading, please sign in below or purchase a subscription. After purchasing, please sign in below to access the content.

Meaning & use

Pronunciation, compounds & derived words, entry history for hypothesis, n..

hypothesis, n. was first published in 1899; not yet revised.

hypothesis, n. was last modified in July 2023.

Revision of the OED is a long-term project. Entries in oed.com which have not been revised may include:

• corrections and revisions to definitions, pronunciation, etymology, headwords, variant spellings, quotations, and dates;
• new senses, phrases, and quotations which have been added in subsequent print and online updates.

Revisions and additions of this kind were last incorporated into hypothesis, n. in July 2023.

Earlier versions of this entry were published in:

OED First Edition (1899)

• Find out more

OED Second Edition (1989)

• View hypothesis in OED Second Edition

Please submit your feedback for hypothesis, n.

Please include your email address if you are happy to be contacted about your feedback. OUP will not use this email address for any other purpose.

Citation details

Factsheet for hypothesis, n., browse entry.

13 slang words Gen Zers are using in 2024 and what they really mean

• Just like the generations before them, Gen Z uses an extensive list of slang words.
• "Bussin'," "ick," and "mid" are popular among Gen Zers.
• Social media helps slang spread rapidly, but proper credit is often lost along the way.

Just like fashion, slang goes in and out of style.

Think about it: When was the last time you heard anyone say "YOLO," "da bomb," or "tubular" unironically?

Social media has made it even harder to keep up with the trends, as anyone and everyone can share and adopt others' use of language.

John Baugh , a linguist at Washington University in St. Louis, told Business Insider last year, "Even though slang has always existed, the emergence of social media has created a situation where the potential for slang virality has increased."

While this can be an exciting opportunity for people to connect and bond over language, one major issue is appropriation. Many of the slang words attributed to Gen Z — defined by the Pew Research Center as anyone born between 1997 and 2012 — were created by members of marginalized communities, most notably Black and LGBTQ+ communities, which often aren't credited for their contributions.

The language is shared online in circles of people who understand its nuance, and it's later appropriated by those who don't know where it came from or fully understand how to use it. And it's easy for those who created it to see when it's being used incorrectly.

Brands or publications trying to attract attention from Gen Z, therefore, need to take care when using slang — at best, they could make a cringey mistake; at worst, they could offend people.

Gen Z values authenticity more than older generations did. Chad Kessler, who was then the global brand president at American Eagle, told BI in 2019, "Gen Z wants to support and participate in brands that they believe in and that reflect them."

He added: "They are loyal to brands that they feel understand them and reflect their values."

As slang continues to evolve daily in person and on the internet, all these words and phrases are subject to their respective ends, when they're axed from public use and deemed "uncool."

But at least for now, here are 13 slang terms Gen Z is using in 2024 and what they mean.

If you're told to do something "for the plot," it means to do it for the experience.

Saying "for the plot" is a fun way for Gen Z to encourage each other to do the crazy, fun things that make storytelling fun when you're older.

Urban Dictionary defines "for the plot" as "the conscious decision to see yourself as the main character of the story that is your life," adding: "You maintain the outlook that every moment — good or bad — is merely a plot point for your larger narrative."

Whether you swipe right on Tinder or go out spontaneously on a Tuesday night, it's all about the plot.

Still popular from 2023, someone with "rizz" has charisma.

It's true, Gen Z has an affinity for abbreviations.

A person with "rizz" is confident, charming, and generally successful in romantic endeavors.

An "ick" is a turnoff.

Ah, the ick . The term first gained widespread popularity years ago after the "Love Island" contestant Olivia Attwood (now Olivia Attwood Dack) used it during season three, but "the ick" remains a staple in Gen Z's vocabulary.

If someone gives you "the ick," it means they've turned you off, either through their actions or behaviors or something they said.

BI reported "icks" could come from actions as small as using the "wrong" emoji in conversation to as large as treating a service-industry worker poorly.

It's all about personal preference.

If someone lives "rent-free" in your mind, you think about them a lot.

They're taking up so much space in your mind that they might as well be paying rent.

Though often associated with specific people like a crush or celebrity, the phrase can also apply to events. For example, someone may say "Beychella" (Beyoncé's iconic 2018 Coachella performance) lives rent-free in their mind.

"Mother" is a popular term of endearment for female celebrities that originated in LGBTQ+ communities.

The New York Times reported last year that the term came from the Black and Latino LGBTQ+ ballroom scene, "a queer subculture in which members are organized into so-called houses often led by a 'mother.'"

"Mother" is a woman deserving of your respect who's had a profound influence on your life.

But who is "mother" depends on whom you ask. For some, it's Diana Ross. For others, it's Rihanna. The internet would argue it's also Reneé Rapp, Mariah Carey, Lana Del Rey — the list goes on.

Michaela Jaé Rodriguez played a house mother in the groundbreaking series "Pose" and told The New York Times that "anyone should be able to use a term that is trending" but that it's important to know where it came from.

"The boundaries are knowing where it came from, always letting the world know where the culture came from," she added.

If a person "ate," they executed something flawlessly.

Often associated with fashion and beauty, saying someone "ate" is a way of expressing they look amazing and did a great job.

Look at almost any picture of Zendaya on the red carpet , and it'd be correct to say, "She ate."

"Left no crumbs" is a continuation of "ate" that's used as additional emphasis.

If you hear "she ate," you may often hear "and left no crumbs" immediately after.

The additional phrase helps emphasize how perfect the person's execution was, though it can be used on its own, too.

For example, " Blake Lively ate and left no crumbs at the 2022 Met Gala ." That means she executed the theme perfectly — everything from her dress to her glam to the presentation on the red carpet was flawless.

"Bussin'" or "buss" means it's very good.

Often used to describe food, "bussin'" is a word that originated in the Black community and means extremely good or delicious, per Merriam-Webster .

So if your kid says dinner tonight was "bussin'," just know you did a great job.

Something is "mid" if it falls short of expectations.

Whether it's a dress on the red carpet, a new TV show, or a pasta recipe, something that's "mid" is mediocre.

BI reported that Kaley Cuoco's 2024 Critics Choice Awards gown missed the mark , so it could also be described as mid.

Another way to say focus is "lock in."

You can "lock in" on an assignment, cleaning your apartment, or even a video game.

"Let him cook" means don't stop him from doing his thing.

While NC State ultimately lost to Purdue in the Final Four, DJ Burns Jr. was a standout in the 2024 March Madness tournament.

His coaches clearly saw how impactful his performance was in their tournament run and decided to "let him cook," upping his average minutes from 24.8 a game in the regular season to 28.2 in their five games of the tournament, per ESPN .

Why call yourself delusional when you can say "delulu"?

As we've already established, Gen Z loves abbreviations.

"Delulu" simply means delusional.

Rapp, a 24-year-old Gen Zer, famously told the "Today" show last year that what gave her confidence was delusion. She followed up on her comments in Gem Magazine this year, saying, "It's so interesting because I feel like delusion is cute now. Delusion is becoming slay. It's very funny and silly."

"It's just a weird, innate belief in myself," Rapp added, "and a real hunger to do something that I love so much. So I think delusion is like my little BFF. It's got me where I am right now."

As the kids say, delulu is the solulu.

(Delusion is the solution).

"Sus" is short for suspicious.

"Love Is Blind" fans know that Sarah Ann Bick's and Jeramey Lutinski's behavior on season six was sus.

Like Chelsea Blackwell said in the reunion, who really stays out talking to someone — who's not their fiancé — until 5 a.m.? And can you really trust someone who lies about their location even after they've shared it? Didn't think so.

• Main content

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of hypothesis – Learner’s Dictionary

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

(Definition of hypothesis from the Cambridge Learner's Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)

Translations of hypothesis

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

balancing act

a difficult situation in which someone has to try to give equal amounts of importance, time, attention, etc. to two or more different things at the same time

Alike and analogous (Talking about similarities, Part 1)

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• Learner’s Dictionary    Noun
• Translations
• All translations

Add hypothesis to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

Puzzles & Games | Word Game: April 16, 2024

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Today's e-Edition

Things To Do

• Food & Drink
• Celebrities
• Pets & Animals
• Event Calendar

Puzzles & Games

TODAY’S WORD — LISTEN (LISTEN: LISS-in: Pay attention to sound.)

Average mark 22 words

Time limit 35 minutes

Can you find 27 or more words in LISTEN? The list will be published tomorrow.

YESTERDAY’S WORD — JASMINE jeans amen anime anise same sane seam semi sine main mane manse mean means mesa mien mine inseam name

To purchase the Word Game book, visit WordGameBooks.com. Order it now for just $5 while supplies last!

RULES OF THE GAME:

1. Words must be of four or more letters.

2. Words that acquire four letters by the addition of “s,” such as “bats” or “dies,” are not allowed.

3. Additional words made by adding a “d” or an “s” may not be used. For example, if “bake” is used, “baked” or “bakes” are not allowed, but “bake” and “baking” are admissible.

4. Proper nouns, slang words, or vulgar or sexually explicit words are not allowed.

Contact Word Game creator Kathleen Saxe at [email protected].

• Report an error
• Policies and Standards

More in Puzzles & Games

Puzzles & Games | Bridge: April 16, 2024

Entertainment | What the ‘Fallout’ show gets right about the post-apocalyptic video game series

Puzzles & Games | Word Game: April 15, 2024

Puzzles & Games | Bridge: April 15, 2024

Justices Examine Use of a Law to Charge Jan. 6 Rioters

The questioning explored the gravity of the assault and whether prosecutors had stretched the law to reach members of the mob responsible for the attack.

• Share full article

Abbie VanSickle

The implications for the court’s decision in today’s Jan. 6 case could eliminate some of the federal charges that former President Donald J. Trump is facing for his role in the plot to subvert the 2020 election. It could also jeopardize hundreds of Jan. 6 prosecutions.

Adam Liptak

Reporting from Washington

Trump allies are using this case to try to reframe the Jan. 6 attack.

Lawmakers allied with former President Trump are using a case before the Supreme Court as part of their effort to reframe the events of Jan. 6, 2021, as a political protest, not a violent assault on the Capitol in which violence disrupted Congress and lawmakers fled.

The case before the Supreme Court, focused on the text of a statute used to charge some participants, also has the potential to determine the very meaning of Jan. 6. Briefs from Mr. Trump’s supporters echo the former president’s embrace of the rioters during his campaign events.

Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio and other Republican lawmakers said in one brief that “the Department of Justice and D.C. juries have readily attributed immorality to the genuine belief of many Jan. 6 defendants that there was fraud during the 2020 presidential election.”

Protests are part of the fabric of politics, they wrote, adding that the prosecutors’ interpretation of the statute would have applied to a peaceful rally led by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

“Advocacy groups throughout history have organized trips to Washington timed to congressional or executive consideration of favored items,” the lawmakers wrote in the brief before going on to quote from a magazine article. “Most famously, the 1963 civil rights ‘March on Washington’ ‘was designed to force President Kennedy to support the Civil Rights Act’ then pending in Congress.”

The brief also discussed other protests, including the disruption of the Supreme Court confirmation hearing of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and praised the Trump administration’s restraint.

“Those actions by protesters were highly improper and certainly were criminal,” the brief said of the Kavanaugh protest. “But President Trump’s Department of Justice did not adopt the strained view that those protesters should be charged” under the statute at issue in the new case.

The Biden administration, in its main brief , devoted a paragraph to the critique, drawing several distinctions. The law, the brief said, “covers acts that hinder a proceeding — not acts, like lobbying or peaceful protest, that are not readily characterized as rising to the level of obstruction or that independently enjoy protection under the First Amendment.”

The brief added that the law applied only to conduct directed at a specific proceeding and required proof that the defendant had acted corruptly.

Critics of Mr. Trump — including J. Michael Luttig, a conservative former appeals court judge, and John Danforth, a Republican former senator from Missouri — countered that the comparisons pressed by Mr. Cotton and Mr. Jordan were profoundly misplaced.

“There is simply no historical comparison between the consequences of criminal acts in opposition to the election of a new president — as illustrated by both our Civil War and the Jan. 6, 2021, invasion — and the ‘what about’ examples discussed in the Cotton-Jordan brief,” they wrote in a brief. “Indeed, no one was physically hurt” as part of “any of those examples.”

“And none of those examples,” they added, “threatened something remotely as fundamental to our constitutional system as the peaceful transfer of executive power.”

Richard D. Bernstein, a lawyer for Mr. Luttig and other former officials who signed the supporting brief, said that allowing cases under the obstruction law to proceed was crucial.

“These obstruction prosecutions deter possible future invasions of Congress aimed at preventing the peaceful transfer of power,” he said.

Advertisement

Another issue to watch is whether the court bites on the notion that there must some proof of evidence or document tampering to trigger the statute. If the justices accept that argument, it could mean that the law doesn’t really apply to boots-on-the-ground Jan. 6 rioters. But even if the court narrows the law in that way, it could still apply to Donald Trump’s Jan. 6-related criminal case.

Overall, the court seemed most accepting of arguments that pointed out the potential harms in interpreting the obstruction law at issue too broadly. The conservatives in particular seemed concerned that if the statute applied to Jan. 6 then it could be weaponized against a range of other political protests.

Arguments have concluded in the Jan. 6 case before the Supreme Court. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrapped up her presentation to the justices, and Jeffrey Green, the lawyer for the Jan. 6 defendant, presented his rebuttal. The arguments were largely technical, focused on the interpretation of a statute that has mainly been construed to focus on the destruction of business records. The court’s decision in the case is expected to come by the end of the term in late June.

The court’s decision in today’s Jan. 6 case could eliminate some of the federal charges that former President Donald J. Trump is facing for his role in the plot to subvert the 2020 election. It could also jeopardize hundreds of Jan. 6 prosecutions.

Jeff Green seized on the concern by the conservative justices that an expansive view of the obstruction law could be a “weapon” against other political protest. “People are going to worry about the kinds of activity they engage in, even if it’s peaceful,” he says.

Justice Barrett asks Prelogar if the obstruction law would be triggered if someone merely stood outside the Capitol and urged the crowd on. Prelogar says if there was evidence that the person was, say, a ringleader of the crowd who made plans to help others to enter the building and stop the counting of electoral vote then, yes, they could be charged with obstruction. That pattern of facts tracks fairly closely to the case of Stewart Rhodes , the former leader of the Oath Keepers militia, who remained outside the Capitol on Jan. 6 but was charged with the obstruction count, among other crimes.

Prelogar says that even though the central figure in this case, Joseph Fischer, was charged with other crimes, including assaulting police officers, the obstruction count he faces was still valid. She says that the evidence in Fischer’s case shows he went to Capitol specifically to disrupt the election certification proceeding and so the obstruction count fits.

Charlie Savage

Chief Justice Roberts asks Prelogar what constitutes formal acceptance of an Office of Legal Counsel memo as an official Justice Department position — rather than just being advice offered to the attorney general —and Prelogar says with a half laugh “I should probably know the answer to that one as a matter of D.O.J. policy.” Roberts says he should, too.

As someone who frequently sues the government seeking disclosures under the Freedom of Information Act, I can attest that the Justice Department often takes the position that Office of Legal Counsel opinions usually do not rise to the level of being a formally adopted policy. That means, in the government’s view, they are exempt from disclosure even though they are considered binding legal interpretations for the rest of the government.

Justice Barrett asks whether a defendant has to commit physical violence to fall under this statute. Prelogar says no. The fact that several Jan. 6 defendants who committed no violence but were still charged with this obstruction law has long been a complaint from rightwing critics of the Justice Department investigation of the Capitol attack.

If you’re just joining us now, the justices are hearing from Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who is arguing that a statute written to prohibit the destruction of business records should apply to Jan. 6 rioters. Several of the conservative justices, including Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, have raised hypotheticals that appear to be pulled from recent headlines to ask whether other demonstrations, including a pro-Palestinian protest that blocks the Golden Gate Bridge, might trigger charges under the law.

Prelogar answers the question in part by noting that only 350 of the 1,350 or so people indicted in connection with Jan. 6 were charged with the obstruction count. Her point is that there are ways to use the statute narrowly. There has to be actual evidence that people not only committed obstruction but did so “corruptly,” as the law requires.

The implication of her argument is that the government has shown it has used the charge judiciously in Jan. 6 cases, so the interpretation she advocates won’t lead to a wholesale criminalization of political protest.

This line of argument about what kinds of political protest fall under this statute gets right to the heart of what, if anything, made Jan. 6 an unique moment in history. Some of the conservative justices are trying to tease out why Jan. 6 is covered by the statute and not, say, a pro-Palestinian protest on the Golden Gate Bridge or a protest at the court itself.

Prelogar is trying to fend off the notion that any political protest that disrupted an official proceeding could be criminalized by this law and punished by a maximum of 20 years in prison. She says that “a peaceful protest,” even one that was “quite disruptive” might not qualify for prosecution under this statute.

What does it mean to act ‘corruptly’?

The law that is the subject of Tuesday’s argument requires prosecutors to prove the defendant acted “corruptly.” But the meaning of that word is disputed.

Indeed, even the judges in the majority in a 2-to-1 appeals court ruling against Joseph W. Fischer, who is accused of violating the law by joining the mob that attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, could not agree on just what the word meant.

In the lead opinion, Judge Florence Y. Pan wrote that Mr. Fischer’s conduct satisfied any plausible definition and that she would not choose among them. “I leave the exact contours of ‘corrupt’ intent for another day,” Judge Pan wrote.

But Judge Justin R. Walker said he was willing to concur in her opinion only on the condition that prosecutors be required to prove that Mr. Fischer had acted corruptly in the sense of having “an intent to procure an unlawful benefit either for himself or for some other person.”

Moreover, Judge Walker wrote, prosecutors must prove that “the defendant not only knew he was obtaining an ‘unlawful benefit’ but that his ‘objective’ or ‘purpose’ was to obtain that unlawful benefit.”

The definition was crucial, Judge Walker wrote, limiting what would otherwise be the law’s “breathtaking scope.”

“If I did not read ‘corruptly’ narrowly,” he wrote, “I would join the dissenting opinion.”

In dissent, Judge Gregory G. Katsas wrote that he would define “corruptly” even more narrowly, requiring an intent to procure “an unlawful financial, professional or exculpatory advantage.”

“In contrast, this case involves the much more diffuse, intangible benefit of having a preferred candidate remain president,” Judge Katsas wrote. “If that is good enough, then anyone acting to achieve a specific purpose would satisfy this requirement, for the purpose of the action would qualify as the benefit.”

Judge Walker said he was doubtful of that reading, but he added that Mr. Fischer’s conduct might qualify under even that strict standard.

“This case may involve a professional benefit,” he wrote. “The defendants’ conduct may have been an attempt to help Donald Trump unlawfully secure a professional advantage — the presidency.”

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar presented the government’s argument that the statute should apply to the Jan. 6 defendants as “a straightforward question of statutory interpretation.” She says that, in plain English, the crime that day involved people attempting to obstruct the work of Congress.

Justice Clarence Thomas asks Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar if the government has applied this statute to other “violent protests” in the past.

Prelogar says no, but for the simple reason that an attack like the one that took place at the Capitol on Jan. 6 had never happened before.

If you're just joining us, the justices have been hearing argument from Jeffrey T. Green, a lawyer who represents Jan. 6 defendant, Joseph W. Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer. The argument thus far has been, as expected, technical and focused on interpretation of a decades-old statute focused on the destruction of business records.

Green just tried to argue that the left-wing attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland were analogous to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. That argument was shut down by multiple federal judges in Washington who have been hearing Jan. 6 cases.

The argument here about whether interpreting the statute in a particular way would mean some of language is superfluous underscores a larger problem with the federal obstruction of justice statutes. Criminal law professors and practitioners agree that the statutes are a confusingly drafted, overlapping mess.

A key precedent ruled that a fish is not a tangible object.

In 2015, the Supreme Court limited the sweep of the statute at issue in Tuesday’s argument, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

The case involved fish. More precisely, undersized red grouper.

One of the sponsors of the law, Michael Oxley, filed a brief in that case explaining its history and purpose, saying it sought to close gaps that made it hard to prosecute accountants in the wake of the collapse of Enron, a giant energy company.

The law meant to address “specific loopholes” that Arthur Andersen, Enron’s accountants, “had exploited when they shredded business documents and destroyed hard drives in anticipation of federal law-enforcement action,” wrote Mr. Oxley, a former Ohio representative, who died in 2016 .

The law, Mr. Oxley wrote, was tightly focused on such conduct and should not be read too broadly. Though he did not address the provision at issue in the new case, it is a good bet that he would have been skeptical of prosecutors’ reliance on it in a case about an attack on the Capitol. (Paul S. Sarbanes, a former senator from Maryland and the law’s other principal sponsor, died in 2020 .)

The question for the justices in the old case, Yates v. United States , was broadly similar to the one the justices are considering on Tuesday: How far can a law meant to address white-collar business fraud be stretched to encompass other sorts of wrongful conduct?

The case arose from a 2007 search of the Miss Katie, a fishing vessel whose captain was John L. Yates. A field officer boarded the ship at sea and noticed fish that seemed less than 20 inches long, which was under the minimum legal size of red grouper at the time.

The officer measured the fish and placed the 72 he deemed too small in a crate. He issued a citation and instructed Mr. Yates to take the crate to port for seizure. But Mr. Yates had the fish thrown overboard and replaced with larger ones. A second inspection in port aroused suspicions, and a crew member eventually told law enforcement officials what had happened.

Mr. Yates was convicted of violating a part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that made it a crime to conceal or destroy “any record, document or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct or influence” a federal investigation. He was sentenced to 30 days’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Mr. Yates argued that the term “tangible object,” read in context, did not apply to fish. Mr. Oxley’s supporting brief agreed, saying Congress had meant to address the shredding of records and similar conduct.

“Against this unanimous evidence of congressional intent, the government’s reading of” the provision “to reach destruction of any and all things, including piscine creatures, falls flat,” Mr. Oxley wrote.

By a 5-to-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the law did not reach fish.

“A fish is no doubt an object that is tangible,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for four of the justices in the majority. But she added that it would cut the law “loose from its financial-fraud mooring to hold that it encompasses any and all objects, whatever their size or significance, destroyed with obstructive intent.”

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the plain words of the law mattered more than its purpose. “A fish is, of course, a discrete thing that possesses physical form,” Justice Kagan wrote, citing as authority the Dr. Seuss classic “One Fish, Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish.”

Defense lawyers have long argued that there was no document tampering aspect at all in the storming of the Capitol and one federal judge in Washington agreed with them, which is essentially why we’re here in the Supreme Court today. But it is possible to argue, as the special counsel Jack Smith has done in Trump’s case, that there was document tampering on Jan. 6. That’s because the certification proceeding involved so-called fake slates of electors wrongly claiming that Trump won the election in several states won by President Biden.

The dense semantics being argued here are circling an important question: whether this statute — designed to curb things like destroying documents — requires specific proof that records were actually tampered with. And further: whether document tampering has anything to do with pro-Trump rioters breaking into the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

A key question in the case: the meaning of ‘otherwise’

The provision at issue in the case, from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, has two parts. The question for the justices is how they interact. And that depends on the word that links them: “otherwise.”

The first part of the provision focuses on evidence, saying that anyone who corruptly “alters, destroys, mutilates or conceals a record, document or other object” to affect an official proceeding is guilty of a felony.

So far, so good. It is uncontroversial to reinforce that destroying documents to impede an investigation has been a core purpose of the law, which was prompted by the shredding of documents in an accounting scandal.

The second part of the provision makes it a crime “otherwise” to corruptly obstruct, influence or impede any official proceeding. Prosecutors say the defendant in the case, Joseph W. Fischer, did that by joining the mob that attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The heart of the case is how the first part of the provision pivots to the second part.

The ordinary meaning of “otherwise,” prosecutors say, is “in a different manner.” That means, they say, that the obstruction of official proceedings need not involve the destruction of evidence. The second part, they say, is a broad catchall for any kind of corrupt interference with an official proceeding.

Lawyers for Mr. Fischer, the defendant in Tuesday’s case, counter that the first part must inform and limit the second one — meaning that the obstruction of official proceedings must be linked to the destruction of evidence. They would read “otherwise” as “similarly.”

The alternative, they say, would be to create a crime of breathtaking scope that would allow prosecutors to charge political protesters and others with felonies carrying 20-year prison sentences.

In 2008, in Begay v. United States , the court considered a law with a broadly similar structure, the Armed Career Criminal Act , which requires mandatory sentences for people convicted of possessing firearms if they have earlier been found guilty of three violent felonies. In one clause, it listed specific crimes that qualified as violent felonies — including burglary, arson and extortion.

Then, as in the new case, there followed an “otherwise” clause, this one adding any crime that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”

The Supreme Court ruled that the examples informed and limited the sweep of the “otherwise” clause. If Congress had “meant the statute to be all-encompassing, it is hard to see why it would have needed to include the examples at all,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority.

A drunken driving offense, the court ruled, did not qualify as one of the covered crimes even though the plain words of the clause would seem to encompass it.

Mr. Fisher’s lawyers say that the “otherwise” clause in the obstruction statute must also be anchored in the preceding clause.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed, with Judge Florence Y. Pan writing that the two uses of “otherwise” were different. The gun law, she wrote, “includes a list of examples followed by ‘otherwise’ in a single, unbroken sentence.”

By contrast, she wrote, the “otherwise” in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act “sits within a separately numbered subparagraph, after a semicolon and line break, all of which put distance between it and the lists of verbs and objects” in the previous part.

In dissent, Judge Gregory G. Katsas wrote that “the relationship created by the word otherwise does not depend on punctuation or line breaks.”

Rather, he wrote, “it flows from the connotation of similarity,” among other factors. That meant, he concluded, that the second part of the provision applies “only to acts that affect the integrity or availability of evidence.”

What does the law at issue in the case actually say?

At its core, the case is about the meaning of a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. It was enacted following the collapse of Enron, a giant energy company, after the exposure of widespread accounting fraud and the destruction of documents by the company’s outside auditor.

There is an uneasy fit between the immediate purpose of the law and its recent use in more than 300 prosecutions arising from the violent riot that forced a halt to the constitutionally required congressional count of presidential electors’ ballots.

At least part of what it meant to accomplish was to address a gap in the federal criminal code at the time: It was a crime to persuade others to destroy records relevant to an investigation or official proceeding but not to do so oneself.

The law meant to close that gap. It did, in a two-part provision, Section 1512(c) of the federal criminal code:

(c) Whoever corruptly — (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object , or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding , or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

The first part focuses on evidence, making it a felony to tamper with it to affect an official proceeding. The second part makes it a crime “otherwise” to corruptly obstruct, influence or impede any official proceeding.

The heart of this case is the pivot from the first part to the second part. The ordinary meaning of “otherwise,” prosecutors say, is “in a different manner.” That means, they say, that the obstruction of official proceedings need not involve the destruction of evidence — in their view, making the second part a broad catchall for any kind of corrupt interference with an official proceeding.

The lawyers for Joseph W. Fischer, who was accused of breaching the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and of assaulting police officers, counter that the first part must inform and limit the second one — meaning that the obstruction of official proceedings must be linked to the destruction of evidence. They would read “otherwise” as “similarly.”

The alternative, they say, would be to create a felony of breathtaking scope that would allow prosecutors to charge political protesters with felonies carrying 20-year prison sentences.

The court’s decision could have a direct impact on Donald Trump.

While the Supreme Court’s hearing is intended to determine the scope and validity of an obstruction law used against hundreds of rioters who broke into the Capitol on Jan. 6, any decision could also have an impact on a separate criminal case: one in which former President Donald J. Trump has been accused of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.

Two of the four criminal counts Mr. Trump is facing in that case are based on the obstruction law. In an indictment filed in Washington last summer, he was charged with conspiring to obstruct the certification of the election on Jan. 6 during a joint session of Congress at the Capitol as well as with actually obstructing it.

If the justices determine that prosecutors improperly used the obstruction law against members of the pro-Trump mob who disrupted the session, Mr. Trump’s lawyers will surely seek to have the charges against him dismissed as well. In fact, they already tried that in October. They argued unsuccessfully to the trial judge in the case that Mr. Trump’s indictment unfairly used the statute, which was initially “directed at the destruction of records in accounting fraud,” by applying it “to disputing the outcome of a presidential election.”

“This stretches the statutory language beyond any plausible mooring to its text,” the lawyers wrote.

Jack Smith, the special counsel handling Mr. Trump’s case, has told the Supreme Court that the two obstruction counts against the former president would be still valid even if the justices narrowed the law to cover only crimes that involved tampering with documents or records.

Mr. Trump triggered that provision of the law, Mr. Smith has said, by plotting to create fake slates of electors that claimed he won in several keys swing states that he actually lost to President Biden. Mr. Smith has accused Mr. Trump of trying to use those fake slates to throw the certification proceeding into chaos and by urging his vice president, Mike Pence, to capitalize on the confusion by single-handedly declaring him the winner of the race.

Even if the obstruction count were ultimately removed from Trump’s indictment, it would probably not be a fatal blow.

The indictment contains two other conspiracy counts that overlap almost entirely with the accusations in the obstruction counts. One of the conspiracy charges accuses Mr. Trump of committing fraud by using deceit to subvert the normal course of the election. The other charges him with plotting to deprive millions of Americans of the right to have votes properly counted.

Prosecutions tied to the Capitol attack have ensnared more than 1,380 people.

The investigation of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack is already the largest criminal inquiry in Justice Department history, federal prosecutors have said. And even after more than three years, it has shown little sign of slowing down.

Every week, a few more rioters are arrested and charges against them are unsealed in Federal District Court in Washington. Prosecutors have suggested that a total of 2,000 or 2,500 people could ultimately face indictment for their roles in the attack.

More than 1,380 people had been charged in connection with the attack as of early this month, according to the Justice Department. Among the most common charges brought against them are two misdemeanors: illegal parading inside the Capitol and entering and remaining in a restricted federal area, a type of trespassing.

About 350 rioters have been accused of violating the obstruction statute that the Supreme Court is considering at its hearing, and nearly 500 people have been charged with assaulting police officers. Many rioters have been charged with multiple crimes, the most serious of which so far has been seditious conspiracy.

Almost 800 defendants have already pleaded guilty; about 250 of them have done so to felony charges. Prosecutors have won the vast majority of the cases that have gone to trial: More than 150 defendants have been convicted at trial and only two have been fully acquitted.

More than 850 people have been sentenced so far, and about 520 have received at least some time in prison. The stiffest penalties have been handed down to the former leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, far-right extremist groups that played central roles in the Capitol attack.

Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys leader, was sentenced to 22 years in prison , and Stewart Rhodes, who once led the Oath Keepers, was given an 18-year term .

The prosecution of a police officer, Joseph Fischer, led to this hearing.

The man whose case led to the Supreme Court hearing on a controversial federal obstruction law is a former police officer from rural Pennsylvania indicted on charges of storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and crashing into a line of his fellow officers defending the building.

Joseph W. Fischer was working for the police department in North Cornwall Township, Pa., when prosecutors say he pushed his way into the Capitol while holding up his cellphone to take videos of the surge. Once inside, he and another rioter “galloped forward,” prosecutors say, making contact with a line of officers who were fighting off the crowd.

Mr. Fischer fell to the ground and, as some nearby officers helped him to his feet, he tried to engage with them, prosecutors say.

“I’m a cop too,” he said, “sometimes the country is worth more than your job.”

According to court papers, Mr. Fischer was concerned about his own job before making the trip to Washington. Investigators unearthed text messages he wrote to the chief of his department, saying that things could get “violent” on Jan. 6 and that the crowd should “storm the capital and drag all the democrates.”

He also warned the chief that he might need him to post his bail, the papers said.

Township officials suspended Mr. Fischer without pay on the day of his arrest in February 2021 and later fired him. But he has pushed back against the government’s description of behavior on Jan. 6.

His lawyers say that he and a companion were prepared to leave Washington that day after listening President Trump’s speech near the White House and turned around to head toward the Capitol only after hearing about the mounting protest there. The lawyers also claim that Mr. Fischer arrived at the Capitol grounds well after Congress had recessed the proceeding to certify the results of the 2020 election because of the attack.

“As Mr. Fischer walked toward the east side of the building, no barricades or fences impeded him,” the lawyers wrote in their brief to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Fischer has disputed the assertion by prosecutors that he charged the police line inside the Capitol, telling the court instead that he was pushed into the officers by “the weight of the crowd.”

He also characterized his interactions with the officers differently than prosecutors did, claiming that he merely talked with one of the officers and patted him on the shoulder.

An accounting scandal spurred the law used to prosecute Jan. 6 defendants.

The provision at issue in the case is part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a 2002 law enacted after the collapse of Enron, a giant energy company, after the exposure of widespread accounting fraud and the destruction of documents by its outside auditor, Arthur Andersen.

The Supreme Court has said that the purpose of the law was “to safeguard investors in public companies and restore trust in the financial markets following the collapse of Enron.”

At least part of what the law meant to accomplish was to address a gap in the federal criminal code: it was a crime to persuade others to destroy records relevant to an investigation or official proceeding but not to do so oneself. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was meant to close that gap.

Lawyers for Joseph W. Fischer, charged under the law with obstructing an official proceeding by joining the mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, said his case had an Alice-in-Wonderland quality.

“The Through the Looking Glass moment here,” they wrote in a Supreme Court brief , “would be for those who wrote the Sarbanes-Oxley Act upon learning that they had created a new and breathtaking obstruction offense by endeavoring to close the narrow Enron-Arthur Anderson loophole.”

Indeed, in a different case on the scope of the statute, one of the sponsors of the law, Michael Oxley, filed a supporting brief saying prosecutors had interpreted it too broadly. The law meant to address “specific loopholes” that Arthur Andersen “had exploited when they shredded business documents and destroyed hard drives in anticipation of federal law-enforcement action,” wrote Mr. Oxley, a former Ohio representative who died in 2016 .

In that case, concerning a separate provision of the law, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the law’s origins informed its meaning and spared the defendant.

“The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, all agree, was prompted by the exposure of Enron’s massive accounting fraud and revelations that the company’s outside auditor, Arthur Andersen, had systematically destroyed potentially incriminating documents,” she wrote for four of the justices in the majority. She added that the government had acknowledged that the provision “was intended to prohibit, in particular, corporate document-shredding to hide evidence of financial wrongdoing.”

An earlier version of this article misstated the year of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. It was 2021, not 2001.

How we handle corrections

Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of Using Obstruction Law to Charge Jan. 6 Rioters

The Supreme Court seemed wary on Tuesday of letting prosecutors use a federal obstruction law to charge hundreds of rioters involved in the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021.

A decision rejecting the government’s interpretation of the law could not only disrupt those prosecutions but also eliminate half of the charges against former President Donald J. Trump in the federal case accusing him of plotting to subvert the 2020 election.

Mr. Trump’s case did not come up at the argument, which was largely focused on trying to make sense of a statute, enacted to address white-collar crime, that all concerned agreed was not a model of clarity. But the justices’ questions also considered the gravity of the assault and whether prosecutors have been stretching the law to reach members of the mob responsible for the attack, which interrupted certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s electoral victory.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who returned to the bench after an unexplained absence on Monday, asked whether the government was engaging in a kind of selective prosecution. “There have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings,” he said. “Has the government applied this provision to other protests?”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor took a different view of what happened on Jan. 6. “We’ve never had a situation before where there’s been a situation like this with people attempting to stop a proceeding violently,” she said.

The question for the justices was whether one of the laws used to prosecute some of the members of the mob that stormed the Capitol fits their conduct. The law, a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, contains a broad catchall provision that makes it a crime to corruptly obstruct, influence or impede any official proceeding.

But the provision is linked to a previous one aimed at altering evidence. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the catchall provision must be read in context. Since the Jan. 6 defendants were not accused of altering evidence, he said, the catchall provision did not apply.

Other members of the court’s conservative majority said that reading the catchall provision in isolation would allow prosecutions of all sorts of protesters.

Two members of the court’s liberal wing responded that the catchall provision was broad by design and not tethered to the previous clause. Congress had meant, they said, to give prosecutors tools to address situations that the lawmakers could not anticipate.

The effect of a ruling rejecting the use of the provision to prosecute Jan. 6 defendants is not completely clear. Most such defendants have not been charged under the provision, which prosecutors have reserved for the most serious cases, and those who have been charged under it face other counts as well.

The defendant in Tuesday’s case, Joseph W. Fischer, for instance, faces six other charges.

Nor is it clear that a ruling in Mr. Fischer’s favor would erase any charges against Mr. Trump under the law. Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing the federal election interference case against the former president, has said Mr. Trump’s conduct could be considered a crime under even a narrow reading of the 2002 law.

Whatever the larger consequences of the court’s ruling, expected by late June, several justices on Tuesday seemed troubled by the government’s interpretation of the law, saying it would allow many other kinds of prosecutions.

“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify?” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch asked. “Would a heckler in today’s audience qualify, or at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. allowed that “what happened on Jan. 6 was very, very serious.” But he added that the prosecutors’ theory could reach, say, protests in the Supreme Court’s courtroom, which have occurred from time to time.

Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the U.S. solicitor general, began her argument by recalling the events of Jan. 6, saying that what some of the participants did that day amounted to obstruction covered by the law.

“On Jan. 6, 2021, a violent mob stormed the United States Capitol and disrupted the peaceful transition of power,” she said. “Many crimes occurred that day, but in plain English, the fundamental wrong committed by many of the rioters, including petitioner, was a deliberate attempt to stop the joint session of Congress from certifying the results of the election. That is, they obstructed Congress’s work in that official proceeding.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked how to distinguish the attack on the Capitol from other actions that have disrupted official proceedings. “Tell me why I shouldn’t be concerned about the breadth of the government’s reading?” she asked.

The law at issue in the case was enacted in the wake of the collapse of the energy giant Enron.

Mr. Fischer, a former police officer, was charged with violating it and with six other crimes. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh asked why the other charges were insufficient.

“Why aren’t those six counts good enough just from the Justice Department’s perspective given that they don’t have any of the hurdles?” he asked.

Ms. Prelogar responded that the other counts did not fully reflect Mr. Fischer’s culpability.

The law was prompted by accounting fraud and the destruction of documents, but the provision is written in broad terms.

At least part of what the law meant to accomplish was to address a gap in the federal criminal code: It was a crime to persuade others to destroy records relevant to an investigation or official proceeding but not to do so oneself. The law sought to close that gap.

It did that in a two-part provision. The first part makes it a crime to corruptly alter, destroy or conceal evidence to frustrate official proceedings. The second part, at issue in Mr. Fischer’s case, makes it a crime “otherwise” to corruptly obstruct, influence or impede any official proceeding.

The heart of the case is at the pivot from the first part to the second. The ordinary meaning of “otherwise,” prosecutors say, is “in a different manner.” That means, they say, that the obstruction of official proceedings need not involve the destruction of evidence. The second part, they say, is broad catchall applying to all sorts of conduct.

Justice Elena Kagan said the catchall provision was a purposefully broad reaction to the Enron debacle.

“What Enron convinced them of was that there were gaps in these statutes,” she said of the lawmakers who enacted it.

She added: “But they didn’t know exactly what those gaps were. So they said, let’s have a backstop provision. And this is their backstop provision.”

Justice Sotomayor agreed. “They wanted to cover every base, and they didn’t do it in a logical way, but they managed to cover every base,” she said.

Jeffrey T. Green, a lawyer for Mr. Fischer, said the court should not interpret the 2002 law to create a crime of breathtaking scope that would allow prosecutors to charge political protesters and others with felonies carrying 20-year prison sentences.

He said that the first part of the provision must inform and limit the second one — to obstruction linked to the destruction of evidence. They would read “otherwise,” in other words, as “similarly.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., citing a unanimous opinion he wrote last week, appeared to agree. “The general phrase,” he said, “is controlled and defined by reference to the terms that precede it,” he said. “The ‘otherwise’ phrase is more general, and the terms that precede it are ‘alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record or document.’”

The case is one of several on the court’s docket this term affecting or involving Mr. Trump. In a separate case to be argued next week, the justices will consider Mr. Trump’s claim that he is totally immune from prosecution.

Mr. Fischer is accused of entering the Capitol around 3:24 p.m. on Jan. 6, with the counting of electoral ballots having been suspended after the initial assault.

He had told a superior in a text message, prosecutors said, that “it might get violent.” In another, he wrote that “they should storm the capital and drag all the democrates into the street and have a mob trial.”

Prosecutors say that videos showed Mr. Fischer yelling “Charge!” before pushing through the crowd, using a vulgar term to berate police officers and crashing into a line of them.

Mr. Fischer’s lawyers dispute some of this. But the question for the justices is legal, not factual: Does the 2002 law cover what Mr. Fischer is accused of?

As the end of the argument neared, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, indicated that she had reservations about the government’s position, saying that the court should not lose sight of “the backdrop of a real-world context.”

“It was in the wake of Enron,” she said. “There was document destruction, and, you know, there was nothing as far as I can tell in the enactment history as it was recorded that suggests that Congress was thinking about obstruction more generally.”