Introduction

The migratory process is a global and historical issue, being characterized for several reasons, such as colonization, importation of labor, postwar migration, among other situations that motivated the space-cultural displacement of subjects throughout history. The formation of Brazil is aligned with the migratory dynamics and its various motivations: given the beginning of the great Portuguese navigations, the crime of the commercialization of African slaves, the Italian, German, Spanish, Japanese, Polish migrations, among others, these peoples and the natives indigenous peoples became part of the Brazilian population. The great geographical dimension has also become a huge cultural and, consequently, linguistic dimension, which is the central object that sets the tone for the discussions undertaken here. Although the recurrent and diverse migratory flows are part of the history and present of Brazil, characterizing the regions of the national territory, communities of speech and cultural practices, the current migratory flow, which we chose to call in this writing forced displaced people (AYDOS, 2010; ROSSA MENEZES, 2018), still lacks social and linguistic policies that in fact promote the necessary reception in order to participate socially in the Brazilian State.

Despite the political, legislative and economic changes that mark Brazil's sociopolitical course in recent years, the arrival of new immigrants - namely, Haitians, Senegalese, Ghanaians and Venezuelans, who make up, according to Cavalcanti (2016), the largest number of immigrants inserted in the formal labor market - it happened very quickly, which led to changes in the membership, demanding public policies for the reception in the country. Although the reasons for migrating from each of these nations are not the same, the barriers encountered in the recipient country are sometimes similar, such as language, labor market insertion and sociocultural adaptation. We will look at some of them throughout the text, focusing on the linguistic aspect.

Starting from a discussion about the term refugee (AYDOS, 2010; ROSSA; MENEZES, 2018), we focus specifically on the discussion of teaching Portuguese to refugees in Brazil, coined as Portuguese as a Welcoming Language (PLAc, Portuguese initials), although on the term welcoming fit reflections and questions (LOPEZ, 2016; ANUNCIAÇÃO, 2017). To understand the implications of the use of the term and its historicity, we will discuss what we mean by Portuguese as an Additional Language (SCHLATTER; GARCEZ, 2012) and PLAc, highlighting what this new way of teaching presupposes, its limits and contours, considering that a proficient language teaching is developed when one is aware of the student's need(s), as well as their culture(s) and particularities that must be considered and respected in the processes teaching-learning. Therefore, we question and seek to answer, regarding linguistic and social policies: what are the implications of a welcoming language teaching? How is it possible to promote reception in this way?

In order to answer these questions, our work proposes to explore the PLAc concept, with regard to the term reception and the production of agency through the process of teaching and learning Portuguese to forced displaced people. We will also discuss what we mean by agencies (BIZON, 2013; LOPEZ, 2016) and how they can be promoted within this bias. We look into this debate with the intention of thinking what needs to be done and what is already done to make the PLAc welcoming without segregating. Parallel to the problematic of welcoming teaching, we approach the concepts of education of the surroundings (MAHER, 2007), agentivity (CANAGARAJAH, 2004), deterritorialization/reterritorialization beyond the geographical space (DELEUZE; GUATARRI, 1995; BIZON, 2013), besides launching questions about teaching actions that are organized in the horizontal and vertical spheres (SANTOS, 1996; 2001). These authors and the mobilized themes support our discussion of language policies designed for refugee immigrants, spanning several areas of knowledge, as is customary within the Applied Linguistics research line to which we are affiliated, notably transdisciplinary (SIGNORINI, 1998; MOITA LOPES, 2006).

Migrants and the various adjectives they can receive

We understand that nomenclatures are imbued with ideologies, so terms such as immigrant and refugee are not interchangeable. Because this article is concerned with language teaching and affiliation with a transdisciplinary Applied Linguistics - which, in general terms, draws on knowledge built on knowledge domains other than language - it is relevant to address migration and refuge in wider aspect, since it is in this area that the teaching of PLAc is located. The authors Rossa and Menezes (2018) corroborate our understanding of the importance of language in dealing with the migration and refuge discussion and state that:

(...) the reflection on the use and reproduction of migratory categories in research practice, is a commitment to be made by all researchers on the subject of human displacement from the global south, because they understand that our practices influence the way in which they work. individuals will be seen and received by states and institutions; Rather than classifying and labeling, we should rather try to understand how to capture the realities of migrant people in Brazil, recognizing the limits of existing categories without forgetting to problematize them (ROSSA; MENEZES, 2018, p. 398, authors’ highlights).³

We dedicate this opening section of the article to migratory typologies, in order to make a commitment to recognize the limits of categories such as “migrants”, “foreigners” and “refugees”, problematizing them. Understanding such nomenclatures from legal knowledge avoids relying on the positivist use of terms that cannot be reduced to evident, objective and neutral phenomena. It is complex to categorize displacements around the world today, mainly because of the difficulty of basing a migrant's status solely on the elements voluntariness and compulsoriness, since these motivations are not easily detectable and their outlines are fluid. As an example of the difficulty in understanding status as an objective phenomenon, we mobilized the case of Angolan refugees. According to Rossa and Menezes (2018, p. 385), these were recognized in different ways by the influence of social class, "persons with identical situations being classified as refugees, displaced, returnees, returnees and expatriates". In this example, the influence of political and economic elements on the categorization of subjects is evidenced, indicating the complexity of migratory typologies and the various variables that condition the recognition of those who migrate.

In addition, the legal status granted to individuals who make up migratory flows requires attention, as the rights of these subjects are legally guaranteed according to the category to which they belong, and there is a difference in the protections that the state grants to a refugee and a person with a humanitarian visa, for example. These labels also serve to generate statistics capable of forging a positive scenario, or not, about the subjects. At present, it is common to find that we are experiencing a humanitarian refugee crisis, and the category “refugee” is associated with some nationalities and specific social classes, generating collective resistance to specific groups that are now badly maligned because they come in large numbers, capable of destabilizing a nation. However, the numbers as well as nomenclatures are manipulative and do not necessarily express the reality: the countries of the global north produce foreigners, while those of the global south produce immigrants and refugees.

Another effect of the creation of nomenclatures is the homogenization and reduction of a complex and heterogeneous situation such as migration in contemporary times, by fitting new migrants into the dichotomous migrant refugee category, considering ones as displaced volunteers and others as forced, without taking into account the different situations that cross each of the terms. Thus, “our interpretation is that migration does not always occur as a voluntary act, and that among other processes that may characterize it, we can include violence as a migratory factor” (VAINER, 1996 apudAYDOS, 2010, p 53). Thus, it is possible that those legally recognized as economic migrants did not leave their countries voluntarily, but because of human rights obstacles, sharing similar migratory motivations as those recognized as refugees.

Due to the complexities existing in nomenclatures and their social and legal implications, we chose to align ourselves with the use of the analytical concept of forced migration, naming the participants in this process as forced displaced. The concept of forced migration encompasses legal concepts such as refugee, international displaced persons, environmental refugees and refuge applicant (AYDOS, 2010; ROSSA; MENEZES, 2018). Another term that deserves attention, which also appears in publications on PLAc teaching, is “survival migration”, proposed by Betts (2010); It is justified that this term does not reinforce the dichotomy forced migration versus voluntary migration, since “when leaving the country is the only option to guarantee survival, it is irrelevant to classify the causes of these deprivations as economic or conflict-related” (BETTS, 2010apud ROSSA; MENEZES, 2018, p. 392). Although this is a seemingly beneficial concept, Rossa and Menezes (2018) point out that the notion of survival proposed by the category reinforces the historically constructed discourse of insufficiency of countries in the global south, which can serve as an argument to legitimize international military interventions from major world powers with vested interests.

To conclude this brief discussion about the implication of the terms we use in our research when referring to the subjects coming from the new migratory flows, we indicate as a complementary reading to those who wish to delve deeper into the subject the Aydos dissertation (2010) and the article by Rossa e Menezes (2018); Relevant discussions on migration can be found in these texts, such as the recognition of humanitarian asylum for Haitians, the complex situation of refugee applicants from Angola, as well as further explanation of the defense of the boundaries of the refugee legal category so that there is no loss in policies specific to these. Next, we discuss the context of teaching Portuguese to forced displaced people, Portuguese as a Welcoming Language.

Portuguese as a Welcoming Language: what to teach? How to teach? How does the language welcome?

By way of explanation, in this work we understand that the PLAc is configured as a subarea of the PLA - Portuguese as an Additional Language, marked by such nomenclature in order to build historicity for the term, grouping researches dedicated to the teaching of Portuguese as a non-native language to forced displaced people. Thus, we must first explain what we mean by Portuguese as an Additional Language and Portuguese as a Welcoming Language, as well as our theoretical and ideological identification with the use of these definitions.

According to Schlatter and Garcez (2012), additional language refers to the teaching of another language in the student's repertoire, which, unlike the use of the term foreign language (LE, Portuguese initials), refers to an additive teaching, which incorporates in the student's life beyond the teaching of a language that can be useful for communication in the most different spheres of human communication (BAKHTIN, 2016) and for the social use and action of language (CLARK, 2000). We opted for PLA (Portuguese as an Additional Language) and not PLE (Portuguese as a Foreign Language) because we consider, in addition to the above reasons, that foreign language refers to something strange, alien, distant, concepts that we do not consider positive in language teaching.

In addition to the considerations made regarding the teaching of PLA, we understand that the teaching of PLAc, as a subarea of Portuguese as an Additional Language, takes certain specificities, considering that the PLAc students, coming from the forced migration processes, seek, through language, some other forms of participation in society that are not the same as those sought by immigrant tourists or people who need to learn Portuguese for other reasons. In other words, the reasons why PLAc students seek to learn Portuguese is basically to survive in a society that does not consider, until now, that it coexists with languages other than Portuguese, which is not yet prepared to receive speakers of other languages in the search for insertion in the job market, in school, to be part of the social activities of the country. Given the relationship between learning the majority language of Brazil and migration, it is necessary to address the issue of language policies.

Teaching Portuguese to forced displaced people: Language Policies

Although Brazil is a plurilingual country, whose official language is Portuguese and the Brazilian Sign Language (Libras), which has indigenous communities speaking indigenous languages, immigrant communities speaking Italian, German, Japanese, Polish and dialect languages. Today, there are no language policies that promote the reception of new immigrants in other languages, nor language policies that value the other languages spoken in Brazil - other than Portuguese and Libras. Such languages and the so-called dialectal languages are considered minority, a euphemic way of diminishing and blocking linguistic and cultural constructions that may arise within these groups. Just as these languages are treated, the languages and culture of immigrants also undergo attempts to erase, while fostering reception in Portuguese. According to Maher:

The vast majority of Brazilians, as stated by Marilda Cavalcanti in 1999, do not know the extent of their country's linguistic plurality. Because they believe that Brazil is, or should be, linguistically uniform, this majority looks at our linguistic atlas and does not see, or pretend to not see, the more than 180 indigenous languages and about 30 immigrant languages spoken daily by born Brazilian citizens. Nor does see, or welcome, the use of Brazilian sign languages and religious niches (Candomblé terreiros) and Quilombola communities, where African languages are still present in chants and prayers (MAHER, 2007, p. 226, authors' highlights)⁴

In her text A Educação do Entorno (Surrounding Education), the author discusses the concept of language and culture, so that clarifies that both are linked and are part of the constitution of the subjects, establishing themselves in a dialogic way. The author considers that, as changes occur in social organizations and human relations, culture is not and cannot be a concept that is in a stereotypical form, belonging to a particular dominant group (MAHER, 2007). Therefore, it considers that the surrounding education must embrace the culture of all those who constitute the social space, from hegemonic groups to minority groups, opening spaces for the manifestation and problematization, in the classroom, of the various coexisting cultures, no matter how divergent. We understand that language is also culture and that both are part of certain places, moments, groups and it is through them that the subjects inserted in language perform their identities. Thinking in this way, we ask ourselves: How does the teaching of PLAc also welcome other cultures?

We defend the understanding that the term welcoming is a euphemism, since it only welcomes immigrants in a language that is not dominated by them and that there are no language policies by the government to promote this reception in Portuguese. According to Grosso (2010, p. 74)

The concept of the host language approximates the definition of the concepts of foreign language and second language, although it is distinguished from both. It is a concept that is generally linked to the host context, an expression that is associated with the migratory context, but, being generally an adult audience, learns Portuguese not as a vehicle language of other subjects, but for different contextual needs, often linked to solving urgent survival issues, in which the host language has to be the bond of emotional interaction (bidirectional) as the first form of integration (in language immersion) for full democratic citizenship.⁵

We understand that a plurilingual country, where language policies for minority languages are precarious, is not prepared to cater to a new public speaking different languages. However, there is also no incentive from the state for the teaching of Portuguese accessible to this public. That is, the country is open to receive immigrants, but they must speak Portuguese and must be individually responsible for learning. When the state is not responsible for certain causes, it is often up to civil society to do the work (MARQUES, 2018).

In this segment, there is the creation of NGOs and free spaces for teaching PLAc, coordinated and taught by volunteers, where it is common that PLAc teachers are not trained, nor are students of Letters, which, on the one hand it's seen as a very great attitude, because they engage in a work in which they do not know so much, for a much needed cause. On the other hand, this act of teaching without training can be problematic because of the language conceptions that underlie the work, which reflects in the teaching practice; Amado (2013) considers that

Although the role of non-teaching volunteers ministering Portuguese to refugees is essential on an emergency basis, it is inconceivable that a country that has more than 400 language courses and about 31,000 teachers a year (PAIVA, 2005) cannot create a program that hires teachers, even without initial training in PLE, as this is another curriculum problem in the Letters courses for teaching Portuguese as a welcoming language for transplanted migrant workers and refugees (AMADO, 2013, n.p.).⁶

Given the importance of language policies in the regulation and promotion of PLAc, we deepen this debate from the approach proposed by Ricento and Hornberger (1996). The authors use the onion metaphor to promote the understanding of language policies and their functioning, in which each layer of the plant symbolizes a responsible action force for the constitution of language policies. The outer layers represent the political and legislative spheres that institutionalize, through decrees, laws and regulations, issues relating to the promotion, veto, recognition, and teaching of languages; the center of the onion represents the teachers who produce linguistic politics in their daily action, deliberately or not, since all acts are crossed by conceptions of language that reproduce or oppose institutionalized policies. Although these layers interdepend on each other, and despite legislation having power over the “inner layers”, the teacher's power of action in his daily classroom practice is admitted in making language policy horizontal.

We add to the term “horizontality” the concepts of verticality and horizontality proposed by Santos (1996; 2001). For the geographer, verticalities are “points in space that, separated from each other, ensure the global functioning of society and the economy” (SANTOS, 1996, p. 194), while horizontalities are points that aggregate in continuity. These concepts that permeate the geographical and sociopolitical spaces concern the policies and institutionalization of actions and laws in general, but also linguistic. The current trend of vertical union concerns globalization, which proclaims the homogeneity of bodies and places, based on a hierarchical and reproductive administration of external rules and norms that have “a disintegrating effect on the then existing local solidarity, with the corresponding loss of capacity to management of local life” (SANTOS, 1996, p. 193).

By transposing the concepts of verticality and horizontality to linguistic issues, we can think of regulations and legislations as actions that take place in verticalities and local/ordinary actions as horizontal in promoting the reintegration of solidarity and the management of local life. In other words, the fruitful language actions for the forced displaced people in Brazil must take into account the demands of those who share the banal spaces with these new immigrants, whether they are PLAc teachers, NGOs, educational institutions that already promote reception. Like the onion metaphor, in which the layers overlap and interfere with each other, the verticalities and horizontalities coexist and are interrelated, because it is necessary to recognize, through (vertical) laws, that guarantee the already practiced reception by the horizontalities. Thus, we advocate an intersection policy, as proposed by Bizon and Camargo (2018). After discussing the precariousness of language policies for minority groups, especially forced displaced people, we discuss concepts dear to the discussion of teaching minority groups.

Agency, agentivity and territorialization in the construction of PLAc teaching

Ana Paula Lopez (2016) discusses, in her work, about certain understandings by teachers, students and coordinators of a PLAc teaching center. The author deals with the stigmatized conceptions about forced displaced people, about the condition of PLAc teaching also stigmatized by teachers, coordinators and even the students themselves and, based on her analysis, suggests that teaching should be directed to the development of agencies for the promotion of social and economic policies.

Our conception of agency is based on what Lopez (2016) and Bizon (2013) support, considering acts and actions that seek to give voice, politicize, appropriate spaces and territories. From this, we understand territorialization as a non-geographic process (DELEUZE; GUATARRI, 1995; BIZON, 2013) since territory is not just physical spaces, but places of belonging, “synonymous with appropriation” and, according to Bizon ( 2013), appropriating something presupposes an agency. Therefore, we understand territorialization and agency, within the perspective of teaching PLAc, as actions to promote greater sense of belonging of the forced displaced people who participate in the society that only "welcomes" them in Portuguese. Moreover, it is not just knowing a language that one can become a citizen and act in society, claim, resist the power networks in which we are inserted. One must learn to be critical. You need to have voice through and beyond language. You must open spaces, geographic or not, and belong to them.

As an example, Annunciation (2017) reports, in his work, a case where Haitian refugee immigrant students were able to express, through a video, their disapproval of a nationally televised subject. Students were uncomfortable with the stigma and approach, considering the way Haiti was portrayed as prejudiced. From this, they organized, together with the teacher, to write in a script what they would say in the video. The video is starred by the students and the message can reach the interlocutors, the program host and the Brazilian public. We consider that this is a way of using PLAc to promote agency, since the classroom was a space for reflection and promotion of actions - which do not necessarily have to be verbal and even less so in Portuguese - that corroborate with the sense of belonging. In line with the concept of agency, is the concept of agentivity, as proposed by Canagarajah (2004). For the author, agentivity and resistance, capable of empowering students belonging to minority groups, allow a more qualified adaptation of the subjects, therefore, it is important to promote in the classroom moments that allow students to exercise their agentivity, negotiating their identities and consequently bringing benefits to the development of learning.

Given the considerations about teaching PLAc made so far, it is still worth discussing the difference regarding language learning issues, which should be taken into account for the preparation of classes and teaching materials. We list some of them:

• About PLAc students:

  • Limited hours due to student workload;

  • Heterogeneous audience regarding proficiency levels: which may be positive for some group activities, but perhaps boring for the most proficient students and may lead to dropout;

  • Students who can speak more than one language are more likely to learn other languages because of relationships made previously while learning a second or third language;

  • Students who are not literate in any language: How to integrate these students into a language class? What kind of literacy practice can be performed to include this student in class?

  • Culture, conception of culture, habits and practices different from each other and different from teachers. How to promote a teaching that does not corroborate the erasure of this culture, a non-hegemonic teaching that is democratic and creates spaces for the promotion of learning that includes language and culture?

  • What do students want to learn? What do they need to learn? Why do they want to learn? These are questions that can be asked in all student groups so that teaching can be done that truly meets the needs of the student and has greater possibilities for engagement;

  • What are the motivations of students to be in a PLAc class? How did they realize that they need and why they need to learn Portuguese? What are the places they transit and which would they like to transit?

• To the PLAc teachers:

  • Knowing the needs of the group for the preparation of classes and teaching materials;

  • Know the specificities of PLA teaching and PLAc teaching;

  • Value the culture and experiences of students;

  • Develop a teaching that articulates the promotion of agencies and territorialization processes;

• To researchers and producers of knowledge on the subject:

  • Reflect on the term welcoming;

  • Develop language policies for PLAc teaching and teacher training for PLAc;

  • Produce reflections and theories on the subject, and guide the production of teaching materials;

  • Open spaces and opportunities for PLAc discussion at universities and schools, giving voice to those who wants know and who already know, in order to create larger collaborative communities and spread the word about the topic..

With this, we consider that there should be more reflections on the subject, in order to promote a teaching that does not reproduce the segregation processes that are configured in the history of the minority peoples and languages of our country.

PLAc, refugee immigrants and life in Brazil

suddenly we are all immigrants
trading one house for another
first we exchange the womb for air
then the suburb for the filthy city
in search of a better life
but some of us abandon their land altogether

Source: (Rupi Kaur)7

We can analyze the relationship of refugee immigrants with language as a form of granting citizenship. We not only refer to legal citizenship, but as a synonym for belonging. The Refugee Statute (BRASIL, 1951) confers:

Article 1. Will be recognized as refugee any individual who:

I - because of well-founded fears of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion, are outside their country of nationality and cannot or will not welcome the protection of such country;

II - having no nationality and being outside the country where he previously had his habitual residence, he may or may not wish to return to it, due to the circumstances described in the previous item;

III - Due to a serious and widespread violation of human rights, he is obliged to leave his country of nationality to seek refuge in another country.⁸

However, guaranteeing the right, in other words, the role, does not give the individual the freedom to participate in all activities they want in Brazilian society. It can be said that it is also not possible for all Brazilians to live and transit in certain physical and idealized places for reasons considered norms, or rules, within micropower networks. One looks at the issue of refuge in the same way as one looks at inclusion policies, giving spaces to minorities that until then did not belong to those spaces.

From Michel Foucault's perspective, power should not be viewed as prohibition or punishment - this is abuse of power - and should be viewed from an upward perspective, capturing the power relations that exist in all structures, before the power of the State. According to Foucault:

It is about capturing the power at its ends, wherever it becomes capillary; grasping power in its more regional and local forms and institutions, especially at the point where, beyond the rules of law that organize and delimit it, it extends, penetrates institutions, is embodied in techniques and is equipped with material intervention, possibly violent (FOUCAULT, 1996, p. 182).⁹

Relations between refugee and Brazilian immigrants are identified in this definition. There are also power relations, in which we can observe, in many situations, the gaze turned to refugees and minorities with hate or pity, as reported by Lopez (2016). Although by right they may belong and settle in society, there are spaces, geographical or otherwise, that are not open to them.

Refugee status grants certain freedoms and deprivations to life in society. The teaching of PLAc, in this sense, should promote possibilities for agency so that these freedoms are increasingly possible and open. Although networks and micropowers are strong, almost consolidated, plaguing many spaces of which we are all part, “where there is power, there is a possibility of resistance” (DANNER, 2010). According to Foucault (apudGALLO, 2017, p. 90):

Undoubtedly, the main goal today is not to find out but to refuse what we are. [...] It could be said, in conclusion, that the political, ethical, social and philosophical problem facing us today is not trying to liberate the individual from the State and its institutions, but to get rid of the State and the kind of individualization it seeks.¹⁰

We consider that agency, agentivity, or resistance should talk to processes of deterritorialization/territorialization beyond geographical space. This means the building of agency and resistance in order to actively participate in society, relate to Brazilian culture and have space to disseminate other cultures, have more possibilities for insertion in the labor market and in daily practices. The refugee document confers possibilities that refugee status often does not. Racial, gender, social and religious prejudice plagues many relationships. For this reason, we consider that one way to resist and promote agency is to make our PLAc students learn Portuguese not only to serve the neoliberal model we are inserted in, but to claim with us a fairer and less segregated society.

These are times of resistance, we know. Using the words of Foucault (apud GALLO, 91-92):

[...] considering that there is no society without power relations, the agonism between power and freedom is an incessant task, a political task inherent to social existence, to the existence of anyone in society, which is to say: the struggle for Freedom, the struggle for misrule, resistance to the imprisonment of the possibilities of action belongs to the common man, is his political task. Insist on existing, existing as multiple possibilities [...], insist on existing again and: re-exist.¹¹

Produce agency, resist, insist and re-exist. Tasks that fit us both as citizens of Brazilian society, increasingly consolidated in power relations - and abuse of power - that must pass from Brazilians to immigrants, teachers to students, sharing collaborative networks of resistance, learning, exchanges and new forms of subjectivation for the construction of fairer and more plural spaces.

Final considerations

In this article, we seek to answer, regarding linguistic and social policies: what are the implications of a welcoming language teaching? How is it possible to promote reception in this way? From the discussion fostered, we join our voice to the work that discusses actions for the intercultural and politically engaged reception of immigrants understood as forced displaced, who have the status of refugees, permanent visa immigrants, humanitarian visa immigrants, refuge applicants, among others. We assume that in order to produce productive dialogues, as applied linguists, we cannot be limited to language.

We stress the importance of opening PLAc classes for students to build their activity, as in many cases this is the only common space for building the identity of forced displaced immigrant as a resistant group in Brazil, as there are not always secondary organizations for these debates to take place, such as immigrant associations. For this reason, the PLAc class goes beyond the space of language teaching as a culture and is configured as a space for building activity. Thus, the classroom as a democratic space made up of immigrants is a reflection of the social changes that are taking place and gradually deconstructing the outdated conception of a unicultural and monolingual nation state.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To CAPES and CNPq, for the scholarships granted.

REFERENCES

AMADO, R. O ensino de português como língua de acolhimento para refugiados. Revista da Sociedade Internacional Português Língua Estrangeira (SIPLE). 7ed., ano 4, n. 2, 2013.

ANUNCIAÇÃO, R. F. M. Somos mais que isso: práticas de (re)existência de migrantes e refugiados frente à despossessão e ao não reconhecimento. Dissertação de mestrado. Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 2017.

AYDOS, M. R. Migração Forçada: Uma abordagem conceitual a partir da imigração de angolanos para os estados de São Paulo e Rio de Janeiro, Brasil (1970-2006). Dissertação de Mestrado. Campinas, SP, 2010.

BAKHTIN, M. Os gêneros do discurso. São Paulo, SP: Editora 34 Ltda, 2016.

BETTS, A. Survival Migration: A New Protection Framework. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations. v. 16, n. 3, p. 361-382, July-September 2010.

BIZON, A. C. C. Narrando o exame Celpe-Bras e o convênio PEC-G: a construção de territorialidades em tempos de internacionalização. Tese de Doutorado. Campinas, SP, 2013.

BIZON, A. C. C; CAMARGO, H. R. E. Acolhimento e ensino da língua portuguesa à população oriunda de migração de crise no município de São Paulo: por uma política do atravessamento entre verticalidades e horizontalidades. In: BAENINGER; BOGUS; BERTINO MOREIRA; VEDOVATO; FERNANDES; SOUZA; BALTAR; PERES; WALDMAN; MAGALHÃES. (Org.). Migrações Sul-Sul. 2ed. v. 1. Campinas, SP, 2018.

BRASIL. Estatuto do Refugiado, 1951.

CANAGARAJAH, A. S. Subversive identities, pedagogical safe houses, and critical learning. In: NORTON, B.; TOOHEY, K. (Orgs.). Critical pedagogies and language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cap. 7, p. 116-137, 2004.

CAVALCANTI, L. Novos fluxos migratórios: haitianos, senegaleses, e ganeenses no mercado de trabalho brasileiro. In: GIEDEL, J. A. P.; GODOY, G. G. (Org.). Refúgio e hospitalidade. Curitiba: Kairós Edições, 2016.

CLARK, H. H. O uso da linguagem. Cadernos de Tradução. Porto Alegre: UFRGS, nº 9, p. 49-71. jan-mar. 2000.

COLL, C. Psicologia e currículo: uma aproximação psicopedagógica à elaboração do currículo escolar. Tradução Cláudia Schilling. São Paulo: Ática, 1996.

DELEUZE, G.; GUATARRI, F. Mil platôs: postulados da linguística. Rio de Janeiro: Editora 34, 1997.

DENNER, F. O Sentido da Biopolítica em Michel Foucault. Revista Estudos Filosóficos, nº 4, p. 143-157, 2010.

FOUCAULT, M. Microfísica do Poder. 12ª Ed. Rio de Janeiro: Graal, 1996.

GROSSO, M. J. R. Língua de acolhimento, língua de integração. Horizontes de Linguística Aplicada, v. 9, n.2, p.61-77, 2010.

GALLO, S. Biopolítica e subjetividade: resistência? Educar em Revista. n. 66, p. 77-94, out/dez. 2017.

LOPEZ, A. P. A. Subsídios para o planejamento de cursos de Português como Língua de Acolhimento para Imigrantes Deslocados Forçados no Brasil. Dissertação de mestrado. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 2016.

MAHER, T. A educação do entorno para a interculturalidade e o plurilinguismo. In: KLEIMAN, Angela; CAVALCANTI, Marilda (Orgs.). Linguística Aplicada - suas faces e interfaces. p. 255-270. Campinas: Mercado de Letras, 2007.

MARQUES, A. A. M. Políticas linguísticas e ensino de português como língua de acolhimento para imigrantes no Brasil: Uma discussão a partir da oferta de cursos nas universidades federais. Dissertação de Mestrado. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre, RS, 2018.

MOITA LOPES, L. P. Uma Linguística Aplicada mestiça e ideológica. In: MOITA LOPES, L. P. (Org.). Por uma Linguística Aplicada indisciplinar. p. 13-44. São Paulo: Parábola Editorial, 2006.

RICENTO, T.; HORNBERGER, N. H. Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. p. 401- 427. TESOL Quarterly, 1996.

ROSSA, L. A.; MENEZES, M. A. Entre Migrações e Refúgio: migrações sul-sul no Brasil e as novas tipologias migratórias. In: BAENINGER; BOGUS; BERTINO MOREIRA; VEDOVATO; FERNANDES; SOUZA; BALTAR; PERES; WALDMAN; MAGALHÃES. (Org.). Migrações Sul-Sul. 2ed., v. 1, Campinas: 2018.

SANTOS, M. A Natureza do Espaço: Técnica e Tempo, Razão e Emoção. São Paulo: Editora da Universidade de São Paulo, 1996.

SANTOS, M. Por uma outra globalização: do pensamento único à consciência universal. Rio de Janeiro, RJ/ São Paulo, SP: Editora Record, 2001

SCHLATTER, M.; GARCEZ, P. Línguas Adicionais na escola: aprendizagens colaborativas em inglês. Erechim, RS: Edelbra, 2012.

SIGNORINI, I. Do residual ao múltiplo e ao complexo: o objeto da pesquisa em Linguística Aplicada. In: SIGNORINI, I; CAVALCANTI, M (Orgs.). Lingüística aplicada e transdisciplinaridade. Campinas: Mercado de Letras, p. 99-110, 1998.

VAINER, C. B. Estado e migração no Brasil: da imigração à emigração. In: Patarra, N. L. (coord.). Emigração e imigração internacionais no Brasil Contemporâneo. São Paulo: FNUAP, 1995.

Notes