Teacher Discussion Forums

I met the problem in my class and I have looked the two words up in Webster. But there's a lack of examples. So it is not clear to me yet. I have problem to explain it to my students who are learning English as foreign language. Will you help me?

Problem:
Which is correct? And what is the difference between them?
These workers are _skilled/skillful__ in operating the machine.

Skilled suggests they've learned how to do something, skillful suggests natural ability. So in your example both are possible.

Consider:
David Beckham is a skillful footballer = he was born with an ability to play well
David Syme is a skilled pianist = he became good by learning and practising.

Well, I'm not sure if natural ability comes into it much (it's not mentioned in any of the dictionary definitions to which I've referred).

The difference, if there is a huge one, seems to me to be more one of having the training or skill to do a job well (skilled) "versus" doing something very well (because of training or experience, not that this training or experience is the focus. Differing construals of the "same" thing, again?*). The Longman Language Activator was especially clear and helpful in its definitions:

[adjective] someone who is skilled at a particular job has the training and skill to do it well

British /skillful American /ˈskɪlfl/ [adjective] someone who is skilful does something very well because they have had a lot of training or experience


Cambridge Advanced Learner's: skilled - having the abilities needed to do an activity or job well

skilful - good at doing something, especially because you have practised doing it


COBUILD3: Someone who is skilled has the knowledge and ability to do something well.

Someone who is skilful at something does it very well.


Now of course, it is well-known that lexicographers consult each other's work (more to ensure at least as full and comprehensive a coverage as the competitors than to plagiarize!), and this might have resulted in one, original analysis of meaning being used as the basis for all subsequent and similar ones, but there is surely something intuitive about all this (and doubtless also to do with a repeated and thorough examination of multiple sets of evidence too).

Anyway, what might make things clearer is a bit of paraphrastic wizardry:

Can they operate (="Are they skilled at operating") the machinery?
vs.
Are they good at operating (="Are they skilful at operating") the machinery?

This kind of paraphrase avoids having to make the "choice" between "skilled at" and "skilful at".

Interestingly, whilst "skilled" is the more productive of the two words (entering into phrases such as "semi-skilled"), and is given more coverage in dictionaries, it is "skilful" that seems to be the "jucier" item in a thesaurus.

* On "construal", see my first post in the "Relative pronouns" thread.

fluffyhamster wrote:Now of course, it is well-known that lexicographers consult each other's work (more to ensure at least as full and comprehensive a coverage as the competitors than to plagiarize!), and this might have resulted in one, original analysis of meaning being used as the basis for all subsequent and similar ones, but there is surely something intuitive about all this (and doubtless also to do with a repeated and thorough examination of multiple sets of evidence too).

Actually, it might be naive of me to believe that lexicographers give such painstaking consideration to the meaning of each and every word; it would certainly be easier (and tempting) for them to just assume that earlier analyses are correct.

What do you guys believe goes on? Do you reckon there really are scores of drudges slaving over and polishing every entry anew? Is a substantially different analysis called for for these two words, in your opinion (taking account of lolwhites's "natural ability", for example)?

On reflection, I was probably wrong about "natural ability". However, I still think that a skilled artisan suggests someone who's learned a trade while a skillful artisan is good at his job, but it doesn't tell us how he acquired the skills.

'skillful' means you can do something very well.
'skilled' means you have the training and expertise.

Obviously there is some overlap.

A skilled teacher, will always be a skillful teacher, but a skillful teacher is not necessarily a skilled teacher.

Stephen Jones wrote:'skillful' means you can do something very well.
'skilled' means you have the training and expertise.

Obviously there is some overlap.

A skilled teacher, will always be a skillful teacher, but a skillful teacher is not necessarily a skilled teacher.

So, how does all that apply to, say, your average EFL teacher, then?

So, how does all that apply to, say, your average EFL teacher, then? [/quote]


How's that?

Is this related only to metalinguistics?

Meaning is probalbly not pre-packed. It is though created and re-created as a speaking community changes.

Skilled and skillfull sometimes mix together.

The basic meaning provided by the dictionaries are the standard ones, as you go to the streets it seems there are no apparent difference to a lot of people.

Maybe those words will be considered as synonims in a near future.

Hiya Jean.

I was making a joke there, "challenging" Stephen Jones to apply his definitions to not just "a teacher" but "an EFL teacher" (and not just because I generally like to joke around with SJ and others, but also because I take a pretty dim view of the training that I paid good money for - I suspect many teachers feel the same way once they've been "in the thick of it" for any length of time). It's kind of hard to explain, but once you get to know me a little better you'll probably realize what the hell I'm on about here.

Like you, I was also tempted to just say the two words were the same (that is, synonyms), but I suspect there are subtle differences in usage (e.g. I wouldn't be surprised if more instances of "skilled" are attributive than "skilful", and "skilful" more predicative than "skilled") that we should try to account for first. Even it all turns out to be inconclusive, at least we might in the process of enquiring uncover related language etc (and for me, such language would be e.g. "can/able to" and "good at", more basic terms to fall back upon if we do indeed decide "skilled" and "skilful" are too close in meaning and usage, or not frequent enough etc to be a major concern in our teaching).

Ok.

No worries!

Interesting that on this occasion that it's BrE that's the letter dropper. Wilful is another, I suppose. Any more?

Skillless (sic) is possible according to my glistening new dictionary but it looks dashed odd to me, old boy.

Interesting indeed, JTT. Glad you noticed that conscious decision of mine to show that I belong to the tribe of hooligans who inhabit that rain-swept, zombie cow-infested little island in the North Sea.

I wonder if the people over at Chambers's Wordtrack HQ considered if that extra l in "skillless" was due to a slip of the key? Probably not, it's likely the data was showing that people (whether lazy and/or stupid I won't say) prefer to add suffixes to the words they DO know how to spell; spelling would be that little bit easier if it followed this sort of impeccable, subconscious "logic", eh!