One step closer to phase 4 in Schneider’s Dynamic Model Francis B. Tatel University of the Philippines-Diliman tatelfrank@gmail.com Abstract This paper examines linguistic insecurity among Filipinos as a hindrance to the progress of Philippine English in Schneider’s Dynamic Model. Using Watts’ sociocognitive approach to language and Rosenberg and Hovland’s (1960) tripartite model of attitude, the connection among language myths in the Philippines, standard- language ideology and prescriptivism is unraveled with the aim of showing that PhE is progressing towards endonormative stabilization. Moreover, this paper introduces the concept of debate tradition, and advances that it is a powerful catalyst in the alteration of linguistic prescriptivism. It is argued that it is necessary to alter the discourse archive of prescriptivism that governs General American English for PhE norm to be completely accepted by Filipinos. To prove diminishing prescriptivism, the change in language attitude towards PhE is shown by comparing surveys. Finally, a graph is presented that clearly shows the weakening of the complaint tradition, which is a strong indicator of endonormative stabilization. Keywords: complaint tradition, Dynamic Model, linguistic insecurity, prescriptivism, standard language ideology Introduction The Dynamic Model of Evolution of Postcolonial Englishes With the objective of accounting for the commonalities observed among the New Englishes, Schneider (2007) developed a model that claims that “a shared underlying process” (p. 29) operates behind the historical development of these Englishes[u1]. * His Dynamic Model of Evolution of Postcolonial Englishes (DME of PCEs) postulates that linguistic changes are a result of a series of identity revisions prompted by extralinguistic factors such as historical events and political affairs. The modification of identity and its resultant linguistic development recurs in five consequent phases respectively called: 1) foundation, 2) exonormative stabilization, 3) nativization, 4) endonormative stabilization, and 5) differentiation. While the developmental phases of most postcolonial Englishes have been satisfactorily located using the Dynamic Model (DM) (Seoane, 2016), some varieties refuse straightforward placement. A case in point is Philippine English (PhE). PhE appears to have a fascinating historical development based on Schneider’s DME. After its very rapid progress from Phase 1 to Phase 2, which “practically merged” (Schneider, 2007, p. 140) due to the rapidity of the spread of English across the archipelago through public education (Martin, 2014), it lingered in Phase 3 * I wish to acknowledge Dr. Shirley Dita and Dr. Ariane M. Borlongan for their comments and insights before and during the writing of this paper and Jacqueliou F. Amatorio for her willingness to listen to my ideas, which helped me in clarifying and organizing my thoughts. All other errors are my own.