leans toward r-fulness is also very sensitive to formality and style issues, so
that the more formal the situation, the more likely New Yorkers are to keep
(r) after vowels (Fowler 1986; Labov 1994: 83–87).
The stability of the distribution of r-lessness in Manhattan is especially
surprising when looking at other data on change over time. Elliott (2000)
looked at films spanning most of the twentieth century, collecting data on an
actor’s use of (r), along with information on the individual’s original variety
of American English (Katherine Hepburn’s native variety is r-less; Ginger
Rogers’ is r-ful) and other demographic information. One clear finding was
that r-lessness was far more common earlier in the century, and that as the
century progressed actors moved rapidly toward r-fulness. Figure 2.4
indicates that both groups – actors whose native variety of English is r-less
(nonrhotic) and actors whose variety of English is r-ful (rhotic) – moved
toward full r-fulness at about the same rate.
Figure 2.4 Five decades of film and the rate of change from r-less to r-ful, by actor’s original
rhoticity status whether r-ful or r-less
Source: Adapted from Elliot (2000: 105)