Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: correlate <to /with>

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Native language
    English - U.S.
    Posts
    655

    correlate <to /with>

    Does something correlate to something else
    or with it?

    Or does it depend on what is being correlated?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Belfast, Ireland
    Native language
    English-Ireland (top end)
    Age
    67
    Posts
    48,897

    Re: correlate to *or* with?

    It may depend.
    OED says "correlate (with or to another)."

    It would help if you could post a specific example.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Native language
    English - U.S.
    Posts
    655

    Re: correlate to *or* with?

    I don't have a specific example, actually....
    I was just wondering since they both sounded kind of ok to my native English ear. And that's because they are!

    Thank you!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Native language
    English-US
    Posts
    1

    Re: correlate to *or* with?

    Quote Originally Posted by panjandrum View Post
    It may depend.
    OED says "correlate (with or to another)."

    It would help if you could post a specific example.
    I have a specific example that I would like feedback on regarding the use of correlate "to" or "with". 'Even narrowing the type of plant to a specific species does not necessarily correlate to (with) a satisfactory contraction in the range of values obtained.'

    Somehow I tend to gravitate to the use of "to" because it is in keeping with the use of "narrowing ..... to a specific species". Then again correlate with begins to appear permissible after I read it several times.

    Thank you for your candid advice.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Native language
    English - U.S.
    Posts
    655

    Re: correlate to *or* with?

    I also like 'to' in this case as well... although I'm not really quite sure why. Sorry it took me so long to see your post!!!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Belfast, Ireland
    Native language
    English-Ireland (top end)
    Age
    67
    Posts
    48,897

    Re: correlate to *or* with?

    The corpora show that "correlate with" is a great deal more common than "correlate to".
    I can't identify any difference in usage, so unless someone can point out that there is a difference and explain it, I suggest it would be best to stick with "correlate with".
    BNC
    ... with - 87
    ... to - 4
    COCA
    ... with - 472
    ... to - 48

    BNC - British National Corpus
    COCA - Corpus of Contemporary American English
    COHA - Corpus of Historical American English
    It takes two to tangle.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Annandale, Virginia, USA
    Native language
    American English
    Posts
    4,079

    Re: correlate to *or* with?

    In its statistical sense—there is a formula for calculating a "correlation coefficient" measuring mathematically the relationship between two sets of quantitative measures—I believe that I have always seen it as "correlate with." There, it's usually in the passive: "Annual plant growth in tons per acre is highly [or strongly] correlated with annual rainfall (r = .85) but only weakly with mean annual temperature (r = .23)."*

    The example in post #4 seems to be a less mathematical use of the verb "to correlate."

    *Hypothetical statement only; I'm not a botonist and have no idea what the statistical relationship is between plant growth and either rainfall or mean annual temperature.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Native language
    English
    Posts
    1

    Re: correlate to *or* with?

    Quote Originally Posted by Deep Bayou View Post
    I have a specific example that I would like feedback on regarding the use of correlate "to" or "with". 'Even narrowing the type of plant to a specific species does not necessarily correlate to (with) a satisfactory contraction in the range of values obtained.'

    Somehow I tend to gravitate to the use of "to" because it is in keeping with the use of "narrowing ..... to a specific species". Then again correlate with begins to appear permissible after I read it several times.

    Thank you for your candid advice.
    Quote Originally Posted by Deep Bayou View Post
    Even narrowing the type of plant to a specific species does not necessarily correlate to (with) a satisfactory contraction in the range of values obtained.
    IMO it should be to.

    'Correlate' appears in many contexts.

    1. In this case, a subject correlates two or more objects.

    2. Unlike the previous case, the subjects correlate but no object exists.

    3. In this case, the subject appears related to the subject, so they correlate to each other.

    4. This last case exhibits the use of correlate in a phrase within the sentence, wherein subject does something with objects that correlate with each other.

    I have no proof and give no guarantee that anything above is accurate. It's probably not a rule, but it seems logical that to is used to connect the subject to the object and with is used to connect the objects with each other.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Native language
    British English
    Posts
    1,394

    Re: correlate <to /with>

    Two measures correlate to a high/low degree

    Weight is correlated with height.
    (That is, one measure correlates with a second measure.)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Belfast, Ireland
    Native language
    English-Ireland (top end)
    Age
    67
    Posts
    48,897

    Re: correlate to *or* with?

    Quote Originally Posted by Deep Bayou View Post
    ...
    'Even narrowing the type of plant to a specific species does not necessarily correlate to (with) a satisfactory contraction in the range of values obtained.'
    ...
    I wonder what the sentence means?

    At first I thought it meant that narrowing the analysis to a specific species does not necessarily mean that there is a reduction in the range of values. I suppose I had in mind the sense that there is no correlation between the number of species in the analysis and the range of values.

    Now that I look again at the sentence, I really have no idea what it means.
    It takes two to tangle.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Native language
    British English
    Posts
    1,394

    Re: correlate <to /with>

    Perhaps because the poster has the mistaken idea that 'correlate' has the meaning 'correspond to'.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Belfast, Ireland
    Native language
    English-Ireland (top end)
    Age
    67
    Posts
    48,897

    Re: correlate <to /with>

    I suspect that I have found the original original.
    Biomass Pyrolysis Kinetics: A Comparative Critical Review with ...
    - 07:14by JE White - 2011
    Even narrowing the type of biomass to a specific species does not necessarily correlate to a satisfactory contraction in the range of Ea values, ...
    linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0165237011000088

    That's as far as I can get, free.
    It takes two to tangle.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •