Blog by Mariana Eunice Alves de Almeida *
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), by the end of 2024, approximately 123.2 million people worldwide had been forced to flee their homes due to persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations, and other events. These people face many difficulties and present several needs when they reach other territories within their own country or even when they manage to cross borders.
One of the primary needs of a migrant in a new country is communication. In this sense, language is considered one of the facilitators of the integration process since as migrants learn the local majority language, they are able to carry out daily activities and enjoy their most fundamental rights. Yet it can also represent a barrier, for example when migrants are unable to receive assistance in their own language or at least in a common language of communication, when they have difficulty entering the job market or exercising their rights to healthcare and education.
Ager and Strang (2008) state that a lack of knowledge of the host country’s language can hinder access to other factors that are important to the integration process, such as access to healthcare, employment, housing, and education. The role of the State should be therefore to remove barriers to integration, especially language and knowledge of the country’s culture, since “being able to speak the host community’s primary language is, for example, generally considered central to the integration process” (Ager; Strang, 2008, p. 182). However, what we observe is the leading role of non-governmental organizations (and more recently, universities) in promoting linguistic hospitality for the migrant population.
This post examines how language policies directed at forced migrants have been planned and implemented by actors who, in the absence of action by States, seek to meet the linguistic needs of these people. It is based on the results of my doctoral research, entitled The linguistic rights of forced migrants: a comparative study between the state of São Paulo and the Autonomous Community of Catalonia based on their regional policies. When working with migration issues, national governments tend to be concerned with the protection and regularization of the migration processes, while local governments (municipalities) generally promote the guarantee of access to rights and local integration. Therefore, the research focused on the role of regional governments (which stand between the national and local levels) in promoting the linguistic integration of these migrants. Based on fieldwork developed between 2023 and 2024 and combined with a literature review, the study compared the protection of linguistic rights in the language policy initiatives for forced migrants in the state of São Paulo (Brazil) and the Autonomous Community of Catalonia (Spain).
The study used the Universal Declaration for Linguistic Rights as a benchmark to analyze policy initiatives and found that, although no region has an official language policy exclusively for forced migrants, actions by governments, international organizations, civil society, and universities support six of the seven linguistic rights outlined in the Declaration for this group. The comparative analysis shows the following results: a) although it is not binding, the UDLR is a relevant guiding document to inspire policies that seek to guarantee/promote the linguistic rights of forced migrants; b) of the regions studied, São Paulo stands out not only for the quantity, but also for the diversity of language policy initiatives it promotes and, as a consequence, linguistic rights; c) considering the actions at the regional level, government agencies present few actions to guarantee reception and linguistic integration for this population group; d) the action of civil society organisations is the most significant followed by international organisations and universities; and finally, e) most linguistic rights are guaranteed/promoted by language policies considered implicit, that is, non-governmental.
Language Policies for Forced Migrants
Any action taken in relation to a specific language inherently has political implications. Whether it is an attempt to legislate and dictate what is considered correct usage, an intervention in the form of a language (i.e. its orthography), or even to impose the official use of one or more languages, there have always been actions affecting the way we communicate.
Being political, an action on language also has a social character, “since language policies are carried out all the time, within a linguistic community, often not named as such, resolved in other policies such as educational, cultural, inclusion or within the positions of speakers in their daily elections” (Cortez, 2018, p. 78).
According to Schiffman (1996), language policies can be explicit (also called manifest, formalized, de jure) or implicit (also called hidden, informal, undeclared, de facto, grassroots). Based on this observation, Shohamy (2005) emphasises that a language policy should not be identified as a policy only because it is publicised as such, but preferably as a variety of mechanisms used to perpetuate linguistic practices, which generally occur implicitly.
In addition to the form in which a language policy manifests itself (explicitly or implicitly), it is important to note its focus. According to Spolsky (2004), researchers in the early and mid-20th century focused more on solving “linguistic problems” in developing nations (especially in African and Asian countries undergoing decolonization processes). In essence, bilingual or plurilingual contexts were considered a problem that needed to be resolved through the officialization/nationalization of one or more specific languages.
A “second wave” of language policy researchers focused more on the development of linguistic human rights, with particular attention to the rights of national minorities. In a postmodern phase of language planning, we observe some appreciation of linguistic diversity, and actions focused on protecting and maintaining this diversity, a context in which issues such as “the loyalty, maintenance, and even revitalization of minority languages enter the agenda of most language policy research” (Lagares, 2018, p. 25).
More recently, linguistic minority groups (especially those historically linked to a given territory) and their linguistic rights have been addressed in significant documents within the field of International Law, either directly or indirectly, such as the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities; the Oslo Recommendations regarding the Linguistic Rights of National Minorities; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages; the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity; and the Convention for the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.
However, concern about the linguistic rights of forced migrants is also growing. The 1996 Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights recommends guaranteeing linguistic rights to forced migrants, such as the right to instruction in their own language and culture, the right to learn the local language of the territory where they reside, the right to access cultural services, the right to an equitable presence of the language and culture of these groups in the media, and the right to be served in their own language in official bodies and in socioeconomic relations. However, as a non-binding instrument of International Law, not all States follow the Declaration’s recommendations.
However, it is not just the State that promotes language policies. In the specific case of forced migration, we observe the significant and growing role of civil society organizations acting to meet the diverse needs of migrants, including the linguistic ones.
In the context of forced migration and from a human rights perspective, we assume that a language policy must seek to welcome migrants and integrate them into the host society. For instance, such policies should facilitate the migrants’ learning of the local language so that they can gradually interact with the local community and grow a feeling of belonging.
Following a trend emerged since several years in Portugal, Brazil has observed the practice of teaching the local language (Portuguese) under a host language approach, which has been termed ‘Portuguese as a Host Language’ or ‘Português como Língua de Acolhimento’ (PLAc) in its original version. These initiatives are primarily promoted by civil society organisations and, more recently, by universities. This approach presupposes that the psychological and social conditions experienced by forced migrants can create barriers to their learning since, in addition to the stress of the migratory movement itself, in most cases they also suffer separation from their family relationships and linguistic and cultural context (Amado, 2013). Teaching the host language therefore aims to facilitate newcomers’ to a new country (be them asylum seekers or migrants in need of international protection) through the acquisition of the majority language, thus trying to provide equal opportunities and fostering the exercise of their basic rights.
The action of civil society in the linguistic reception of forced migrants
We can identify four groups of actors that work to promote linguistic policies for forced migrants: the State, through national, regional, and local governments; international organizations, which have a history of promoting reception and integration policies for this population; civil society organizations; and more recently but with increasing frequency, universities.
Among the different actions that can be identified as language policy initiatives are: 1) Interpretation services in legal proceedings; 2) Information about the process of applying for international protection in a language that the person can understand or with the assistance of an interpreter; 3) Community interpreting; 4) Multilingual assistance; 5) Teaching the local official language(s); 6) Adult literacy; 7) Free translation services for informative documents; 8) Training of public servants to assist migrants; 9) Production of multilingual informational material on the rights of the migrant population; 10) Promotion of cultural diversity; and 11) Offering language courses taught by forced migrants (as a way to also promote their labour integration).
Of these four groups of actors, civil society organizations (CSOs) such as institutes, non-governmental organizations, collectives, and social movements play the most prominent role. These organizations are in closest and most frequent contact with the daily lives of migrants, hence they usually not only tend to receive support from governmental agencies and international organisations for these, but also develop models of language policies that may be replicated by different actors that welcome migrants.. Despite constantly facing funding challenges to ensure the development and continuity of their activities, CSOs play a fundamental role in various issues related to the local integration of forced migrants.
The comparison made in my doctoral research on the work of Brazilian and Spanish civil society organizations, although limited in time and geography, serves as a starting point for reflecting on how these organizations operate in other countries. A first observation relates to the scope of these organizations’ activities – some receive State funding, contributing to or even replacing the responsibility that should in principle lie with governments; others operate at the local level, having the autonomy to create or even adapt the services they offer to provide linguistic support to the target audience.
Civil society organizations promote what Shohamy (2005) calls implicit policies, not only because they are part of comprehensive forced migrant reception projects that have some linguistic component, but also because they present a “presumed” language policy: that forced migrants should be guaranteed the right to communicate in their own language or in a language they can understand, and the right to learn the local language(s) of the host society. These are the principles underlying the policies promoted by these organizations – implicit policies because they are undeclared and unofficial but widely implemented, including by universities and international organizations, although less frequently.
Conclusion
The discussion on language policies and rights is broad, and most research focuses on the protection of minority languages and the promotion or maintenance of multilingualism. When focusing on the existence of language policies aimed exclusively at forced migrants, the reality is both challenging and encouraging.
Challenging because the actor that should be the main promoter of these policies, the State, does little to welcome forced migrants. At least when we consider State action at the national level in Brazil and Spain, integration initiatives (and linguistic integration, in particular) are practically non-existent. But the scenario is also encouraging because other actors strive to address this gap – among these actors, civil society organizations stand out.
From a human rights-based approach, when studying (or even developing) language and local integration policies for forced migrants, language must be considered a right, a linguistic right, beyond its function to facilitate or hinder the integration process. Considering language only as a means for the integration process justifies the existence of local language courses, which, for the most part, offer only a basic level – the underlying assumption being that migrants need just the “basics to survive” in the host country. Instead, language policies must conceive language as a right – only with this shift can linguistic rights begin to gain visibility and legitimacy.
References
Ager, A.; Strang, A. 2008. Understanding integration: a conceptual framework. Journal of Refugee Studies, v. 21, n. 2, p. 166-191.
Cortez, D. 2019. Políticas linguísticas em Criciúma: promoção e ensino da língua portuguesa como língua de acolhimento. Dissertation (Master in Education) Universidade do Extremo Sul Catarinense, Criciúma, Brazil.
Lagares, X. C. 2018. Qual Política Linguística? Desafios glotopolíticos contemporâneos. São Paulo: Parábola Editorial.
Schiffman, H. F. 1996. Linguistic Culture and Language Policy. London: Routledge.
Shohamy, E. 2005. Language Policy: hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Routledge.
Spolsky, B. 2004. Language Policy. Cambridge: University Press.
* Mariana Eunice Alves de Almeida holds a PhD in Humanities and Social Sciences from the Federal University of ABC (UFABC) with a doctoral period at the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB) thanks to a CAPES Print scholarship (Institutional Internationalization Program). She holds a Master’s degree in the same field from the same institution. Holds a bachelor’s degree in Administration and a teaching degree in Languages (Portuguese/English). She has experience as a university professor, teaching specialization courses in the field of Communication, and in undergraduate courses (Language and Translation courses). She is a teacher of English and Portuguese for foreigners, a translator, proofreader, copy editor, and critical reader, and a developer of teaching materials. Has experience as an examiner for CELPE-Bras (Portuguese Language Proficiency Exam for Foreigners). She volunteered for the Nossa Casa course, a Portuguese language teaching project for refugees offered by the Federal University of ABC and participates in the Human Rights and International Relations Study Group (GEDHRI-UFABC) at the same institution.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author/s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Refugee Law Initiative. We welcome comments and contributions to this blog – please comment below and see here for contribution guidelines.