interference with

USAGE SUMMARY

'interference with' is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when referring to the disruption of an existing action or process. For example: "The noise outside was causing interference with her concentration."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Formal & Business

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

Knowing Interference with Performance.

The New York Times

"There was no interference with that creation".

The New Yorker

He was charged with interference with privacy.

The New York Times

And it must prevent P.B.A. interference with internal affairs investigations.

The New York Times

"That certainly presents a potential interference with open business practices".

The New York Times

A second charge, of interference with privacy, was dismissed.

The New York Times

We had enough of interference with the Baath Party".

The New York Times

"There's not interference with foreign affairs," Mr. Miller said.

The New York Times

"Interception of communications is interference with democratic rights.

The Guardian

She argued against state interference with religious views and against local interference with federal immigration law.

The New York Times

Interference with impending elections is extraordinary, and interference with an election after voting has begun is unprecedented.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "interference with", clearly specify what is being interfered with to provide context and avoid ambiguity. For example, instead of saying "there was interference", say "there was interference with the signal".

Common error

Avoid using "interference with" in overly broad contexts. Instead of vaguely stating "there was interference with things", clarify what specific actions or processes were disrupted, such as "interference with the investigation".

Linguistic Context

The phrase "interference with" functions primarily as a noun phrase followed by a preposition, indicating a disruption or obstruction affecting something. Ludwig AI confirms this usage is correct and common in written English.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

35%

Science

30%

Formal & Business

15%

Less common in

Encyclopedias

5%

Reference

5%

Academia

5%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, "interference with" is a grammatically correct and widely used phrase that signifies disruption or obstruction. According to Ludwig AI, its typical applications span across diverse fields, including media, science, and legal contexts. While versatile, it is crucial to specify the object of interference for clarity. When seeking alternatives, consider options like "intervention with" or "impeding with" based on the desired nuance. With a high expert rating and frequent occurrence in reputable sources, "interference with" remains a reliable choice for expressing unwanted disruption.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

intervention with

This suggests a more direct and deliberate act of getting involved, often to change or prevent something.

intervening with

Indicates a more direct and active act of getting involved to influence or change a situation.

impeding with

This alternative suggests a slowing down or obstruction of progress, similar to causing interference.

intrusion with

Implies unwanted or unwelcome entry into something, disrupting its normal state.

infringement with

This suggests a violation or breach of someone's rights or boundaries, akin to causing interference.

meddle with

Implies interfering in something that is not one's concern, often in a disruptive or annoying way.

influence with

Implies exerting power or sway over something, which can be a form of interference depending on the context.

encroachment with

Suggests gradually taking over or intruding on someone else's territory or rights, similar to causing interference.

manipulation with

Suggests skillful handling or controlling of something, often in a deceptive or insidious way, which can constitute interference.

interaction with

While interaction can be neutral, it can also imply disruptive involvement depending on the specific context.

FAQs

How is "interference with" used in legal contexts?

In legal contexts, "interference with" often refers to actions that disrupt contractual agreements or privacy. Examples include "tortious interference with contractual relations" or "interference with privacy", both representing actionable offenses.

What are some synonyms for "interference with" that maintain a formal tone?

Formal alternatives to "interference with" include "intervention with", "impeding with", or "encroachment with", which can be suitable depending on the context.

How does "interference with" differ from simply "interaction with"?

"Interaction with" suggests a neutral or cooperative engagement, while "interference with" implies a disruptive or unwanted involvement. The key difference lies in the negative connotation of disruption or obstruction conveyed by "interference with".

What are common examples of "interference with" in technological contexts?

In technology, "interference with" often describes disruptions to signals or systems, such as "interference with wireless devices" or "interference with communications", highlighting the disruptive impact on functionality.