I've read that both are acceptable but "associated with" is superior. Is there ever a time that "to" is acceptable? Does it matter at all? I'm writing copy for a public website and want to make sure I get this right.

  • 1
    I'd stick with "with" here. Google NGrams says it has 50M written instances of "is associated with", but less than 0.5M "is associated to" (which latter form sounds slightly "odd" to me). – FumbleFingers Aug 15 '12 at 17:46
  • 2
    ehtimse, please edit your question and quote verbatim the source that refers to associated with as ‘superior’. Thanks! BTW, answers to Difference between “affiliated” and “associated” point out that for affiliated, British English more often uses affiliated to and AE affiliated with – James Waldby - jwpat7 Aug 15 '12 at 17:57
  • Why the down vote? I searched for my question before posting but didn't find any duplicates. I tried to phrase it clearly. I don't understand the psychology of SE loyalists. – ehtimse1970 Aug 16 '12 at 12:00
  • @ehtimse1970: Not my -1, but I'm willing to try explaining the "loyalist psychology." Your question says "I've read that both are acceptable…" yet what reputable source says that? Discussion boards, unlike grammar sites, are hardly reputable (anyone can say anything! [sic on the "!"]); even so, the majority of the answers on those boards seem to say that "with" is better, and "to" seems incorrect. Had your links directed us to reputable sources claiming both are OK, instead of babble that seems to say they're not, maybe there'd be no downvote. It's phrased clearly, but the research is weak. – J.R. Aug 16 '12 at 20:37
  • 2
    I didn't say they were "reputable" sources. I merely said "I've read that...". If they had been reputable references, there would be no point asking this site. The point of my questions was precisely that I needed a reputable site to comment on the issue. – ehtimse1970 Aug 16 '12 at 21:08

"Associated to" would occasionally be acceptable when speaking about certain IT concepts, but in general purpose usage, "Associated with" is preferable nearly every time.

  • 1
    That is an interesting reply. I am steeped in IT vernacular, having spent fifteen years writing software. Seeing the use of "associated to" in IT vernacular may be confusing me about its legitimacy. – ehtimse1970 Aug 15 '12 at 18:29
  • 1
    Also if you frequently view translated sites, you see "Associated to" because web apps such as Google translate translate word for word, and in Romance languages the translation for "associate" is paired with the translation for "to". – Marcus_33 Aug 15 '12 at 18:39
  • @Marcus_33 This is not true for Google Translate as it translates phrases where applicable and also from user suggested translations – Carlos Muñoz Dec 17 '14 at 21:17

These day either 'with' or 'to' may be used. Traditionally it was 'associated with', which was preferred in the 1950s. But things have changed, and the use of 'associated to' is now so common as to be unremarkable everywhere.

  • 2
    Incorrect grammar and the use of jargon have both grown very common but that's doesn't mean one should use them. No? – ehtimse1970 Aug 16 '12 at 12:05
  • 1
    No, since the question is on word usage, you are only partially right. Nevertheless, the jargon usage will probably be formally acceptable within a generation. – Elberich Schneider Aug 16 '12 at 12:13
  • And I am prone to agree with Mr Xavier Vidal Hernández. That sad condition [language absorbing mistakes] is established in something called 'Grammar of Uses' or 'Grammar of Usage' that reunites the frequent-but-so-far -non-grammatically-correct uses of words, expressions and the like and that kind of grammar states what is the next trend for acceptance, let alone dictionarization. – user50192 Aug 21 '13 at 11:54
  • There is a distinction in my opinion. In most cases 'associated with' is the normal usage and implies a more or less equal status between the parties or objects taking part in the association. The only case where I would use 'associated to' would be in referring to a lower status organisation or person associating themselves to one of higher status. For example the Smallville Gazette might become associated to the Daily Planet. – BoldBen Dec 9 '17 at 9:35

From my experience as an editor for an international journal, I often see "associated to". When I have noted the authors' affiliation, they were not American. "Associated" is not listed in Garner's Modern American Usage, which sometimes indicates when something is standard British English. It is also not listed in the style guides for the journal I work for, The Economist, or The New York Times. In searching for "associated to" and "associated with" on The Economist web site and my journal's web site, I found both were used. Once in The Economist, they were both used in the same article (http://www.economist.com/node/14115951). In that article, "associated with" was used in a quote from the World Bank, whereas "associated to" was used by the author. However, "associated with" was much more common in both my journal and The Economist.

My conclusion is that "associated with" is preferred, but "associated to" is accdptable.


I arrived here looking for an answer to "associated with" or "associated to". Instinctively, and being English-speaking born and raised, "associated with" rings well in my ears. I agree with those who express preference for the use of this version.

If, as Elberich Schneider says, "these day" we can use either, then I choose to use "with". These days, lots of things are acceptable that are distasteful.

The quote from J.R. is from a publication in Quebec, where an English article is often a badly translated version of something written in French, or written by someone whose English is "not so good", and so I give it less than full credence, even though the topic of the effects of pesticides is fascinating.

So, I am "with" those who vote for "associated with".

  • Hi Randall and welcome. StackExchange sites are for question asking and answering. Do you have a question you'd like to ask? Otherwise mods will probably delete your post. – Unrelated Jun 14 '18 at 18:56

I believe both are acceptable these days. Even the Standard English language has to adapt eventually. Modern times require a modern-day language, and therefore both can be used normally in English language today.


Both constructions are widely used but there is an important difference between the two:

  • "Associated to" implies a hierarchical dependence where the entity being associated has a lower rank than the entity that becomes the receiver of the association. In "B is associated to A", A carries greater rank than B.
  • "Associated with" implies equal rank. In "B is associated with A", A and B have equal rank and participation.

"Associate to" is being used a lot in my industry unfortunately (federal IT consulting in D.C.). It is incorrect, but because so many illiterates are using it in influential government publications, it is actually gaining widespread acceptance. When most of the country cannot use "lie/lay" correctly, thinks "I should have went" is correct, and will think you're weird if you say "She and I went to the store", there probably isn't much we can do to stop "associate to" from becoming the norm.

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.