Can someone please explain the difference between these two terms, i.e. when to use/not use each one...... Im stumped.
1 2
I don't think "in accordance to" is a correct phrase. Accordance means "agreement" or "harmony", so you wouldn't be in "agreement to" something or in "harmony to" something. You could only be "in agreement with" or "in harmony with" because agreeing with something or someone puts you in a category or group WITH that person or thing. Does that make sense?
You only need to type "in accordance to" into Google to find 191,000 occurrences of this phrase. It is a correct phrase and there is a very subtle difference in meaning to "in accordance with". I would like a succinct explanation of this difference.....if thats possible!
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
If that's the case, I'm stumped. haha, sorry. It sounds incorrect to me. Sorry I can't be more help!

Try this link to [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=accordance "]Dictionary.com for the word Accordance.[/url]

It seems to depend on whether accordance is an agreement of opinion or a granting of rights.

n 1: concurrence of opinion; "we are in accord with your proposal" [syn: accord, conformity] 2: the act of granting rights; "the accordance to Canada of rights of access" [syn: accordance of rights]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Hope that helps.

Following the lead of MountainHiker here, I would recommend using "in accordance to" when "accordance" means "granting". Otherwise, use "in accordance with", regardless of what you see through Google.

Google up both at the same time: "in accordance to" "in accordance with"

and you'll find some interesting cases.

Some of the uses of "in accordance to" are incorrect substitutes for "according to", and these seem to include some non-native writers as well. Other uses of "in accordance to" appear to be slips. For example, I found a few articles where the phrase "in accordance with" was used many, many times, and "in accordance to" only once, in the exact same context!

I also found many cases where the two were used interchangeably in the same context, indicating that the writer saw no difference at all in meaning between the two.

With graphs or lists of data I noticed the usage "in accordance to" where I would have used "according to", as in "We are listing the participants according to age" written as "in accordance to age".

My dictionary lists "accordant to" and "accordant with" as possibilities, as well as "accordance with", but not "accordance to".

Perhaps it depends whether the writer feels "accordance" is more related like "compliance" or "conformance". We can comply with the rules, or we can conform to the rules. Feelings aside, for me it will always be "in accordance with"!
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
The fact that there are 191K hits on Google with an incorrect phrase means nothing. Do a search on "irregardless." (462K hits)

When you are saying that something is happening in following with something the phrase is "in accordance with," as in, "In accordance with the rules of the English language, you should use 'with' instead of 'to' in this phrase."

The confusion with the preposition in this phrase comes from the unrelated phrase, "according to," as in "According to this Web site, I should use 'in accordance with.'" ;-)

I hope this helps!
I agree that the Google count is totally irrelevant when it comes to justifying correct grammar.
Anonymous "In accordance with the rules of the English language, you should use 'with' instead of 'to' in this phrase."
To add to the confusion, I would suggest this instead:

"According to the rules of the English language, you should use 'to' instead of 'with' in this phrase"

"In accordance with the rules of the English language, you use 'with' instead of 'to' in this phrase"

Note the difference: In the last sentence, the word "should" is omitted.


Sure. There are 191 thousand occurrences of "to" but there are 967 MILLION of "with". So, I guess that settles the matter, sort of.

English is fortunately - or unfortunately for that matter - the real esperanto : so you will find thousands of occurrences which are totally wrong over the Internet. I guess you can trust sites with an Anglo-Saxon URL extension (co.uk, ca, gov.us, etc...) but be really cautious with English terms and phrases on others.

Ciao ;-)
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Show more