The current obsession with "Gone Missing"

[Baker, John]

        A few observations, based on searches of the allnewsplus
database on Westlaw:

        1.      "Gone missing" is not in any literal sense driving out
the alternatives.  In January 2009, there were 575 examples of "gone
missing," as opposed to 9517 examples of "disappeared."

        2.      The phrase derives from British English, and to a large
extent it is still not all that common in the U.S.  For example, of 20
usages from January 2009, only four were from U.S. sources, and two of
those were quoting a Turkish official.

        3.      Usage has increased sharply over time, but not
particularly in the past year or two.  Here's what I found in January of
each cited year:

2009            575
2004            505
1999             69
1994             11

        Because Westlaw coverage is not level over time, these numbers
are meaningful only in comparison to some base.  I used citations of
"disappeared" in the same month for comparison:

2009            9517
2004            8447
1999            3963
1994            2273

        So "gone missing" was uncommon 15 years ago, somewhat more
common 10 years ago, and fairly common over the past five years, but
still far less common than "disappeared," which has a similar meaning.
The increase has been mostly in British and international sources, which
mostly use British rather than American English.

        4.      Even in British sources, "gone missing" has not taken
over.  For example, the London Times (the timesuk database) used "gone
missing" 36 times in 2009, but "disappeared" 504 times.


John Baker


-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Jonathan Lighter
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 11:13 AM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: The current obsession with "Gone Missing"

I can't say when I first heard/read "gone missing."  For some reason I
associate it with missing ships during WWII.

Sounds fine to me.  If it really is running riot in the media (maybe so,
maybe not), I suspect one reason may be that it's shorter than "reported
missing."  It also avoids the passive voice, one of the top taboos of
second-rate writers.  Finally, it sounds (at least to me) a little
spooky:
it seems to emphasize (maybe through greater concision and the
suggestion of
motion) that the thing/person really, really should be there. But isn't.

JL


On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Arnold Zwicky <zwicky at stanford.edu>
wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Arnold Zwicky <zwicky at STANFORD.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: The current obsession with "Gone Missing"
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> On Jun 7, 2009, at 5:53 AM, Joel S. Berson wrote:
>
> > At 6/7/2009 07:47 AM, Robert Hartwell Fiske wrote:
> >> "Gone" or "went" missing is dreadfully popular today. Everyone from

> >> reporters on "CNN" to detectives (or their writers) on "Without a
> >> Trace" now prefer it.
> >
> > Did it become prevalent in English at the time of the "disappeared"
> > of South American dictatorships?
>
> no.  see my previous postings.  its spread in the U.S. seems to be
> relatively recent, though.
>
> joel then goes on to say some sensible things about meaning and to
> express doubts about Fiske's claim that "go missing" is driving out
> the alternatives.  i too doubt this.  i suspect that this impression
> (and the idea that there is a "current obsession" with the expression)

> is an instance of the frequency illusion: people notice most of the
> occurrences that come past them (because the idiom strikes them as
> odd) and don't notice occurrences of the alternatives.
>
> arnold

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org