I would like to know the difference between "introduction to" vs "introduction into". I feel the former is the right choice in the following sentence,

This chapter provides an introduction to Maps.

which is correct? Basically, I'm asking this because my supervisor replaces my "to" to "into". I didn't ask him why and at the same time I'm not able to understand the difference.

  • into indicates movement toward the inside of a place or something. You can introduce something or someone into something.
    – Schwale
    Commented Dec 23, 2015 at 17:40
  • @AlexK I mean can. For example I introduced my friend into the club.
    – Schwale
    Commented Dec 23, 2015 at 17:42
  • @Subjunctive what does that sentence mean? I've never heard introduce into used that way, but google ngram shows that it's even more popular than "introduce to"
    – Alex K
    Commented Dec 23, 2015 at 17:48
  • 1
    I think that "introduction to" is the better option in this context. That is the way I've seen it written in all of my textbooks. Google ngram confirms that "introduction to" is the much more popular option: books.google.com/ngrams/…
    – Alex K
    Commented Dec 23, 2015 at 17:50
  • @AlexK Of course, I'd use to all the time, but I don't find an a good answer to it.
    – Schwale
    Commented Dec 23, 2015 at 17:52

3 Answers 3


Both are correct but used in different places. It depends on which you would use aside from the introduction. For example, if I said;

I'm going to learn about maps.

Then I would use introduction to.

I'm going to be introduced to maps.

explanation of introduced to

Also when you use this, it generally means you are being introduced to someone not something.

Now if I were saying;

I'm going into a seminar.

Then I would use introduction into.

I'm being introduced into a seminar.

explanation of introduced into


As a native speaker, I agree with your initial assumption. In EVERY context,

Introduction to

sounds more natural and correct. I probably would never correct someone who said introduction into but I personally think it sounds weird.

This probably doesn't answer your question very well, but I know language learning can be frustrating, and I wanted to let you know that I think your sentence is better than the one your supervisor chose!


According to online collocation dictionaries (I checked a few), using to or into depends on the meaning of "introduce". If it's used in the sense of getting someone/something acquainted with someone/something else: use "to". If it's used in the sense of bringing something (technology/knowledge) into a field/place: use "into".


  1. Emma introduced me to artificial intelligence. [I now know of artificial intelligence.]
  2. Emma explains how she introduced artificial intelligence into Company X. [Artificial intelligence is now used in Company X.]

Note that it would thus make a huge difference whether Emma would introduce me to or into Company X. In the first case, I would get to know Company X and feel respected as an individual person. The second case would imply that I am some sort of asset and from now on to be used within Company X. I would start doubting my rights. I would start doubting if I am in fact human. Maybe I am just a robot, one of many, introduced into Company X.

Source: http://www.ozdic.com/collocation-dictionary/introduce

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .