+0
The two examples are seen quite often in literature (especially in technical/medical texts), with the former being more common. Are they strictly equivalent? What subtle nuances distinguish the two? Thanks for your comments.
1 2 3 4 5
Comments  (Page 5) 

I am a native English speaker and writer. In the field of Psychology, when we speak of word associations, this is where "associated to" sounds more correct than "associated with". For example, "I associate the smell of freshly baked bread to my grandmother when I stayed in her country home." What do you associate the ocean to? I associate it to long, hot summers spent snorkelling and and sailing with my father."

I landed here after looking for clarity in associate to vs. associate with. After going through the comments, I can see a couple of things. Non-native speakers of English tend to use Associate to more often, and that seems plain wrong. But that last comment confirms that there are instances, say in the context of associations between two completely different entities, "to" can be considered okay! So, my take home: Use to when the two entities are contrasting, similar to the compared to usage. Everywhere else stick with, with! Thank you so much.

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?