TABLE 2.

Domain-specific variation in perceived language legitimacy (PLL) across social domains.

Social domain	Dominant language/standard variety	Local or marginalized variety
Family and private life	May be functionally accepted, though sometimes felt as formal or affectively distant.	May be associated with intimacy, family memory, and heritage, as illustrated by minoritized languages such as te reo Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand or Sámi languages in Nordic communities (Barrett-Walker et al., 2020; Lloyd-Smith et al., 2023)..
Education	Commonly institutionally authorized as a principal medium of knowledge, assessment, and academic authority, such as English in many international higher education contexts.	May receive symbolic recognition but limited pedagogical authority, as illustrated by Welsh-medium education in Wales or Sámi language education in Nordic countries (Cann, 2004; Lloyd-Smith et al., 2023).
Institutional life	Commonly authorized for administration, law, expertise, and formal recognition, such as national standard languages used in government and professional settings.	May remain secondary or restricted in institutional practice, particularly where formal recognition has not been matched by routine use in administrative or professional domains.
Public voice	May be treated as the unmarked or authoritative medium of official political, academic, and media communication.	May be locally meaningful while receiving less authority in formal public communication, as illustrated by continuing debates over the place of Singlish in formal settings (Jenkins, 2015; Rose and Galloway, 2019; Lee and Ahn, 2021).

The contrasts presented here are illustrative, domain-sensitive tendencies rather than universal properties of dominant or minoritized languages. Their expression may vary according to the linguistic resource, speaker, audience, institution, and social context.