The current obsession with "Gone Missing"

[Jonathan Lighter]

Confusing them with facts: an old trick.

JL

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Baker, John <JMB at stradley.com> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Baker, John" <JMB at STRADLEY.COM>
> Subject:      Re: The current obsession with "Gone Missing"
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>        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
>

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