Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42698725›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026

Perceived language legitimacy as a psychological judgment: a conceptual analysis of recognition, belonging, and self-worth.

Shuzhao Wu, Jie Zeng, Xingpeng Zheng

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Shuzhao WuSchool of Foreign Languages, Fuzhou University of International Studies and Trade, Fuzhou, China.
Jie ZengSchool of Foreign Languages, Chengdu Normal University, Chengdu, China.
Xingpeng ZhengSchool of Digital Economy and Management, Chongqing Institute of Engineering, Chongqing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article develops perceived language legitimacy (PLL) as a theoretically refined framework for examining how languages and varieties come to be regarded as authoritative, valuable, or marginal within particular social contexts. Existing accounts of language attitudes, symbolic power, and language ideology have provided important explanations of linguistic evaluation and inequality. Less attention, however, has been given to the psychological appraisal through which speakers anticipate whether a language or variety will be accepted as a credible resource for knowledge, identity, authority, or public participation within a particular domain. PLL is conceptualized as a context-sensitive psychological judgment that complements these existing sociolinguistic and social-psychological accounts by explaining how historically established hierarchies, normative expectations, identity positions, and unequal distributions of symbolic value are interpreted by speakers. It provides a psychological link between socially organized linguistic hierarchies and speakers' expectations of recognition or devaluation as language users. The article situates PLL in relation to established concepts including language attitudes, prestige, ideology, and identity. It further considers how legitimacy judgements may influence belonging, self-worth, educational uptake, public voice, and participation in multilingual societies. By focusing on this psychological interface, the article provides an account of how linguistic inequalities are experienced by speakers and translated into language-related expectations and actions.

Indexed as

conceptual analysislinguistic evaluationlinguistic inequalitymultilingualismperceived language legitimacypsychological judgmentself-worthsocial recognition

Identifiers

PMID42698725
PMCPMC13541721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.