Recent policy and scholarly reports, accreditation agencies' guidelines, and professional association efforts have called for teacher preparation programs to incorporate more frequent and rigorous clinical experiences. Directing three elementary and secondary education programs in two states, we recognized that one reason they--and perhaps other teacher educators around the United States--have been challenged to develop robust and consistent experiences was because of the lack of a common language by which clinical program efforts, roles, and structures are described. Curious about whether variation in terminology was a widespread phenomenon, yet committed to practitioners' rights to determine the language that names the structures of their profession, we conducted two studies of the lexicon used by the constituents of teacher preparation programs, focusing on language used to name clinical features. Here we share the results of these studies, revealing the range of terms employed in clinical preparation in the absence of a common lexicon. They ultimately propose consideration of a common framework of such language, suggesting caution about adopting a standardized lexicon that disregards localized conditions or impedes collegial discussions across contexts.