This proposal analyzes adult migrant and refugee integration and inclusion processes in the Northern region of Portugal, considering two major elements: i) host language learning and teaching; and ii) citizenship and sense of belonging. Therefore, we question how host language learning, the host culture, and the characteristics of different educational contexts facilitate access to various dimensions of integration and inclusion for adult migrants and refugees. Thus, our main intention is to understand the role of host language and of learning contexts in the different integration and inclusion dimensions, especially those enhancing community participation. To do so, we have to consider the learning processes as contextually and culturally based, to understand the extent to which learning contexts are also social and community participation contexts and, lastly, to comprehend how relationships established there and the opportunities for intercultural education support access to citizenship, and to the development of a sense of belonging. 

The literature discusses the importance of the host language on migrants and refugees’ integration and inclusion processes (Bianco & Cobo, 2019; Grosso, 2010; Pinho & Ançã, 2022) mentioning it as a facilitator as in the framework developed by Ager and Strang (2008); we believe it is more than that. It may also empower the individual who learns (Kuhlmann, 2016; Miranda & Fernandes, 2022), make him/her an active subject again and unlock the access to other integration and inclusion dimensions. Hence, as a resource to access social, cultural, human and economic capital (Esser, 2006) and rights and duties in the host society (Grosso, 2007) it goes beyond communication. That is why the host language learning process is a multidimensional and complex process (Grosso, 2007) that focuses on developing the learner’s autonomy and agency (Martins, 2022). The different educational contexts where this learning process may take place should be acknowledged as places invested and committed to the integration and inclusion processes (Norton, 2013). In this discussion, we will consider the results coming from data gathered formal, non-formal and informal educational contexts. 

Integration and inclusion processes are very important as these are not only about the ones arriving, but also about the ones hosting (Berry, 2012; Castles et al., 2002; Hynie, 2018). The literature has shown how these two processes are different, but also how they complement each other (Decmann, 2021; Narli & Özaşçılar, 2020): the integration process is more concrete as it responds to the immediate needs migrants and refugees (might) have, such as employment, housing, education and healthcare (Ager & Strang, 2008);  while inclusion is about the connection to a sense of belonging, participation, self-confidence and autonomy (Narli & Özaşçılar, 2020; O’Reilly, 2005; Silver, 2015) in the host country. The common element between both processes is the host language, linking the host society and the newcomers; it is, therefore, a cultural, social, linguistic and emotional element (Pinho & Ançã, 2022), or, as Grosso (2010) and Kuhlmann (2016) put it, more than just a language, empowering and transforming those using it. 

The daily interactions between newcomers and the different host society’s members are connected to social networks construction. Interactions in informal contexts help build social networks, fostering well-being and participation (Sorgen, 2015), and are an important source of social capital, providing access to cultural and symbolic capital (Strang & Quinn, 2019). 

In this proposal, we analyze and discuss how host language is at the center of both integration and inclusion processes, not only broadening the possibilities of linguistic education and the development of social relationships but also fostering a sense of belonging and citizenship as both participation and community involvement.

This work is based on semi-directed interviews with actors who were both teaching or learning Portuguese as a host language. We conducted 18 interviews with Portuguese host language teachers, from public schools (n=10) and social organizations responsible for the integration and inclusion of migrants and refugees (n=8) and 20 interviews with adult students learning this host language, from both contexts (13 interviews from students in public schools and 7 interviews from students in social organizations). By choosing this method to collect data, we believe we are closer to those who speak with us and the option for semi-directed interviews allowed for the co-construction of the interview script through a dialog with the interviewee. The specific case of the interviews with students learning Portuguese as a host language required the use of other languages, such as English, Spanish or French; when necessary, we also used tools for translation, like Google Translate or Deepl. The great majority of the interviews were in-person, except for two interviews with teachers/volunteers and three interviews with students, which occurred online. Explicit verbal consent was obtained from all participants and the ethical care of anonymity and confidentiality was guaranteed. The interviews with teachers/volunteers focused on their perspectives on the specific needs of these groups of students, the barriers they face when arriving and settling in the host country, specific training for teachers, and on how they see themselves dealing with issues of difference. With students, we focused on understanding their current and future perspectives on the role of the host language, learning it, and using it, in their integration and inclusion in the host society, particularly the dimensions that involve community participation. In addition to the interviews, the students were also asked to fill in a small infographic on various areas to analyze the different experiences they have in the host country when using the Portuguese language. All the interviews were recorded using an audio recorder for later transcription and were all analyzed inductively, interpretating and defining the categories and considering possible relations between them.

Regarding teachers and volunteers, the results show these two groups present similar results. They both revealed a lack of preparation and lack of support to deal with host language learning as a meaningful social and community context of participation, especially regarding students’ civic, social, political, and individual rights. Due to the lack of specialization of teachers and volunteers, these resort to traditional school practices in host language classes, reproducing school models they use to teach children and young people, not embracing the social dimension, which must be at the center of the teaching-learning process. Some teachers revealed that they went beyond the limits of the classroom and broadened the possibilities of education by helping students answer emails or fill in forms, for example, upon request. Nevertheless, it is essential to mention this one specific social organization that used the context of host language teaching as a strategic tool not only to linguistically empower students but also socially and politically, affirming the students’ linguistic integration and their awareness of and access to fundamental rights. Regarding the students’ infographics and interviews, the host language was described as an enabler of integration and inclusion by supporting essential dimensions such as employment, social relations, and feeling part of the host community. The results demonstrate the importance given to informal educational contexts - through interaction, participation, and creation of social networks - to make the host language foster and support empowerment, individual agency, and sense of belonging. The combination of the three dimensions highlighted by the participants creates a suitable and conducive environment for integration and inclusion in the host country, sustained by learning and using the host language. Also, it becomes clear that its use prevents the growth of isolation, exclusion, and marginalization.

Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2008). Understanding integration: A conceptual framework. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(2), 166-191. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fen016 Berry, S. (2012). Integrating refugees: The case for a minority rights based approach. International Journal of Refugee Law, 24(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eer038 Bianco, R., & Cobo, M. O. (2019). The Linguistic Integration of Refugees in Italy. Social Sciences-Basel, 8(10), 284. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8100284 Castles, S., Korac, M., Vasta, E., & Vertovec, S. (2002). Integration: Mapping the Field (C. f. M. a. p. Research & R. S. Centre, Eds.). University of Oxford. Decmann, B. (2021). Essential Notions concerning the integration of refugees. Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 12(1), 121-141. https://doi.org/10.14267/cjssp.2021.1.5 Esser, H. (2006). Migration, Language and Integration. Grosso, M. J. (2007). As competências do Utilizador elementar no contexto de acolhimento Língua Portuguesa e Integração, Lisboa. Grosso, M. J. (2010). Língua de acolhimento, língua de integração. Horizontes da Linguística Aplicada, 9, 61-77. Hynie, M. (2018). Refugee integration: Research and policy. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 24(3), 265-276. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000326 (Refugee Integration: Research and Policy) Kuhlmann, M. (2016). Pelo Direito de Falar: práticas de ensino, acolhimento e empoderamento em contextos migratórios. Migrações Internacionais, Refúgio e Políticas. Martins, C. (2022). Guia para a inclusão linguística de migrantes (Vol. 35). Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Miranda, H. P., & Fernandes, S. R. d. S. (2022). Interculturalidade e PLAc: reflexões acerca de educação e cidadania de imigrantes e refugiados. Revista Teias, 23(69), 230-242. https://doi.org/10.12957/teias.2022.66018 Narli, N., & Özaşçılar, M. (2020). Understanding and Measuring the Social Inclusion of Syrian Refugees in Istanbul: The Case of Zeytinburnu [Article]. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 39(3), 299-320. https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdaa007 Norton, B. (2013). Identity and Language Learning: extending the conversation (2 ed.). Multilingual Matters. O’Reilly, D. (2005). Social Inclusion: A Philosopical Antropology. Politics, 25, 80-88. Pinho, J., & Ançã, M. H. (2022). Aprender português língua de acolhimento, em contexto não formal: imigrantes e refugiados em Portugal. Revista Lusófona de Educação, 58, 31-49. https://doi.org/10.24140 Silver, H. (2015). The contexts of social inclusion. Available at SSRN 2641272. Sorgen, A. (2015). Integration through participation: The effects of participating in an English Conversation club on refugee and asylum seeker integration [Article]. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(2), 241-260. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2015-0012 Strang, A., & Quinn, N. (2019). Integration or Isolation? Refugees’ Social Connections and Wellbeing. Journal of Refugee Studies, 0(0).