1

I was reading this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine and noticed that the word abduct/abduction is used often in the text.

After reading its definitions in Merram-Webster and Cambridge dictionaries, I am still unsure I fully understand the exact meaning of the word and its nuances. The most suitable definitions for the Wikipedia article from these dictionaries seem to be:

  • to seize and take away (a person) by force (Mwrriam-Webster)
  • to take a person away by force (Cambridge)

However, they seem very generic. For example, these definitions seem applicable to what police does to criminals, or what army does to conscripts in some cases, but I have not seen "abduct" used in such contexts.

So what would be the exact meaning of "abduct" (for the Wikipedia article)?

Also, is this word neutral? Or has negative connotation? I'd guess it is the latter, but better to confirm.

mintay
  • 113
  • 3
  • to take away by force is generally without the person's consent. How can "by force" not be negative? – Lambie Oct 16 '23 at 13:46
  • @Lambie I think that "by force" often implies negative things, but maybe not necessarily always? – mintay Oct 16 '23 at 13:56
  • 1
    Well, I think by force is always negative in human terms. abduct is very close to kidnap though they do differ a bit. – Lambie Oct 16 '23 at 14:00
  • @Lambie if it is not too much to ask, could you please clarify the difference between kidnap and abduct? IMO it could be very relevant in this question – mintay Oct 16 '23 at 14:38
  • 1
    Kidnap usually has the specific meaning of the abduction of an individual by criminals for ransom. – Kate Bunting Oct 16 '23 at 18:11
  • The specific word "arrest" is normally used for being taken by the police (even if legally it might be called being "detained" or something else). I'm not sure what you're referring to by conscription - in most of the world the police or military police or other authorities have the power to detain conscripts who refuse to show up for service, but that's not really any different to arresting or detaining in other cases. Are you referring to historical things like press-ganging? Or the practice of taking children to serve as child soldiers in Africa? Or taking slaves who are made to fight? – Stuart F Oct 16 '23 at 22:08
  • @StuartF well, if you need specific examples of somewhat forced conscription, there are videos circulating on the Internet, where allegedly people on the streets in Ukraine are taken (not going to vouch for their authenticity though), and there are probably similar cases in other countries. My point is that the actions of the police and/or army people seem to match with the dictionary definitions of "abduct", that's why I wanted to clarify if there are any nuances that are missing from the dictionary definitions. – mintay Oct 16 '23 at 23:16
  • @Lambie: "by force" is not inherently negative (I would argue that you seem to agree by your use of "generally", by which you acknowledge fringe exceptions to the rule), but you are correct that it's almost exclusively used in the context of meaning "as a way to achieve doing so against someone's will, even if they physically try to prevent it from happening". The latter is generally considered negative unless justified (such as a reasonable arrest procedure) – Flater Oct 17 '23 at 05:15
  • 1
    In context of child abduction, I'd say those definitions are not general enough - parental child abduction, for example, rarely involves use of force. – Maciej Stachowski Oct 17 '23 at 08:46
  • @Flater The dictionaries say by force, and yes, by force is negative. Find me one use of it which isn't. – Lambie Oct 17 '23 at 14:48
  • @Lambie: Negativity implies morality, and words carry no inherent morality - unless they specifically describe morality, which "force" does not. For every example you can find of a moral negative (the serial killer took him from his home by force) I can find a grammatically equivalent moral positive (they removed the serial killer from their home by force). Negativity is subjective, e.g. if Bob removed Tom from his home by force, the negativity of the statement hinges on who the serial killer is (if anyone) and arguably whose home it is (since that is left ambiguous in the above example). – Flater Oct 17 '23 at 23:52
  • @Flater The negativity hinges on the definition of "by force", and it's in the actual definition of the word abduct. That thing you say about "who the serial killer is" is simply not true. – Lambie Oct 18 '23 at 14:50
  • @MaciejStachowski thanks, this is a valid remark w.r.t. the article and the definitions! – mintay Oct 18 '23 at 16:06

2 Answers2

3

(context - I'm American, my answer may not be applicable to all dialects)

This is a great point! In general, abduct is only used in mainstream culture when referring to an illegal or illegitimate action. So the police arresting criminals or an army conscripting soldiers would not be referred to as abduction. This is because the word has a strong negative connotation of illegitimacy or illegality.

However, not all people/groups believe that the laws should be written as they are. This is especially true when talking about multiple countries, with their own sets of laws. In the article you linked, Russia may well view this action as legitimate and within its legal rights. However, the word abduction is used because the broader global community and the UN has condemned the action and ruled that it is a war crime.

In the US, you may hear police arrests referred to as abductions by people or groups who do not believe the police have a legal or moral right to arrest the people in question (this comes up not infrequently around protest movements). Whether a draft is called an abduction or not likely depends on the political views of the people talking about it.

Friendly Racoon
  • 1,569
  • 5
  • 8
  • 1
    The AmE thing is irrelevant as are most issues with regard to formal vocabulary in English. – Lambie Oct 16 '23 at 14:28
  • 1
    @Lambie what do you mean? – Friendly Racoon Oct 16 '23 at 18:12
  • How much clearer can I be? The fact you are an AmE speaker is irrelevant for a term like this one. Formal English is basically the same everywhere. – Lambie Oct 16 '23 at 18:17
  • 4
    @Lambie Hmmm, that's an interesting thought, I'll need to do some thinking on it. I included the note in this answer because it addresses connotation, not only syntax. I know that connotation can sometimes change culture/culture, and I am aware that I may not know which words/phrases have connotations that differ from those I'm familiar with. I wouldn't even claim to be able to speak for all AmE speakers, much less a more global community – Friendly Racoon Oct 16 '23 at 19:24
  • 4
    @Lambie Do you feel there is a specific reason to not include a note about context/positionality? – Friendly Racoon Oct 16 '23 at 19:25
  • 3
    @Lambie: That is an overextended absolute. There is a lot of overlap between formal registers of most English-speaking regions, but I wouldn't go as far as claiming that it is an absolute equality. To use a somewhat silly example, "taking off your pants in a public area" would mean two very different things, with one implying something illegal (in the UK you'd be taking off your underwear and thus exposing yourself) but not the other (in America you'd only be taking off the top layer of clothing, this is assuming you're not going commando underneath). A less silly example: a public school. – Flater Oct 17 '23 at 05:23
  • @Flater I am not talking about specific everyday vocabulary which can differ. The word abduct is not specific everyday vocabulary, is it? It's a formal register word. And those are most often the same exact thing. Obviously, we are not discussing lorries, cotton wool, lifts, trousers, pants, etc. Gees. – Lambie Oct 17 '23 at 14:51
1

abduct
to seize and take away (a person) by force (Mwrriam-Webster) to take a person away by force (Cambridge)

kidnap
verb [ T ] US /ˈkɪd.næp/ UK /ˈkɪd.næp/ -pp- Add to word list to take a person away illegally by force, usually in order to demand money in exchange for releasing them: The wife of a businessman was kidnapped from her home in London last night.

(Cambridge Dictionary, also)

The main difference is that kidnapping usually involves a ransom of money or something else in exchange for releasing the person. Abduction does not imply that, but just that the person is taken away by force or without their consent. Those young girls in Nigeria (a while back) were abducted but were not kidnapped since at the time no money was demanded. They were abducted for other purposes such as slavery, sexual or otherwise.

Lambie
  • 44,522
  • 4
  • 33
  • 88