“Introduction to” seems to be much more common than “introduction into”, but is the latter an acceptable alternative? If it is, is there some difference in meaning, tone, or connotations? I was inclined into thinking that “into” suggests a deeper introduction, going deep inside the topic, but is it just me?

I mean specifically the use of “introduction” to mean an introductory presentation of a topic, such as in “Introduction to Linguistics”.

  • The phrases can mean entirely different things, not in degrees but in a radical way, depending on context. And no, introduction into is not further deeper than introduction to. See usage examples from literature. – Kris May 14 '14 at 5:57
  • 1
    This question is based on a misconception and lacks background effort. – Kris May 14 '14 at 5:58

Introduction into is non-standard in Britain and (as far as I know) most of the US when used in a figurative sense (i.e. in the sense of making acquaintance with).

Of course, one can introduce one physical object into another, or an idea into a conversation or intellectual construct:

Jorge introduced the stick of the firework into the neck of the milk bottle.

Hegel introduced the notion of a dialectical process into philosophical discourse.

  • Yes, quite so. But You can also be given a short three-day introduction into the sex-life of fleas. And that is the usage I think the OP is getting at. – WS2 May 14 '14 at 7:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.