[SOUND]. In this session we shall talk about the structural barriers affecting the processes of linguistic integration among adult migrants and refugees, and the societies of reception and the invisibility which these people face. The main objectives of the session are to review the concept of integration from a linguistic perspective, to present the hypothesis that are considered when we talk about the problems of learning a new language faced by adult immigrant students. And the effect this hypothesis have in making the structural factors involved invisible. To critically approach the naturalization of linguistic discrimination and finally, to explore the most common structural barriers. We have already seen how the concept of social integration has been highly contested in the last decade, but also how it is necessary to find new ways of conceptualizing integration. In this line, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe states that the concept of integration aims to ensure social cohesion through the accommodation of diversity, which is understood as a two way process. Immigrants have to accept the laws and basic values of European societies. And on the other hand, host societies have to respect immigrants dignity and distinct identity. And to take them into account when developing domestic policies. It also says that this two way process gives migrants a chance to make use of resources they bring with them. And to expand their identity, acquiring new concepts and a new language. At the same time, the receiving country will see migrants as people enriching its linguistic and cultural dimensions. But to accept integration as such, makes it absolutely necessary to change and adapt all kinds of public services. If we think about Parveen, whose experiences we analysed previously, real integration should give her the opportunity to take part in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the new country. In order to live under the same legal social and financial conditions as the national citizens of that country, but that would mean not just providing her with language courses but also adapting those institutions which interact with her in acquiring the language of reception to her linguistic needs. However, often the decisions taking regarding social and more specifically linguistic integration do not follow this guidance but follow other political agendas. Political agendas that have been built on a problematic conception of immigration, under the stereotypical representations that we analyze previously, the provision of language courses is often thought of as a means of promoting social cohesion, rather than eliminating structural barriers. We introduced in this course a clear example of using language courses. Not for the sake of linguistic integration understood in this deep way, but as a strategy to combat radicalization among the Muslim community and considering women as a mere instrument for this political agenda. When the British government was investing 20 million pounds in a fund for Muslim woman to learn English in order to combat radicalization, it was on the one hand ignoring the needs and expectations of this woman, not recognizing the cultural contributions to society, linguistic among others. And on the other hand, assisting and representing them as a threat rather than as full citizens. This problematic way of understanding linguistic integration is produced by a lack of awareness of linguistic diversity. Despite the celebratory discourse around multilingualism, with prestigious languages such as English, French or German, linguistic diversity is often conceived as an anomaly. So while an international school with students from different linguistic backgrounds would present that as an asset to the school. On the contrary, linguistic diversity of school was migration from poorer areas would be seen as an additional problem. We have already seen that this is an idea supported by political discourses against immigration, which entails a naturalization of linguistic discrimination. In part, this has to do with the fact that language is a concept that is often detached from its social aspect, which makes it more difficult to discover when language is involved in the process of discrimination. Language is often presented as an objective concept, which can be enshrined in a dictionary and a normative grammar. It is associated with nation states that are constructed on the basis of their relation with one unique language almost as if by nature, and therefore, it seems common sense to consider it as Sinequanon of belonging to a territory. However, this unidirectional relationship between territory and language is something relatively new, which has to do with the construction of nation states. We will not elaborate further here on this issue which is beyond our scope. But it is important to understand how this phenomenon occurs and that it is not exceptional at all. But it is linked to historical and social factors. This idea that it is natural for people living in a territory to be characterized by speaking only one language leads to the normalization of a monolingual ideology. This ideology links citizenship to mastery of the language of the territory. So it is generally accepted that the ability to speak the language of the host territory is the precondition for participation and integration in the host contest. However, when the conditions of incorporation of the migrant population into the receiving countries are analyzed. It has shown that mastery of the language is one necessary condition, think of Parveen's needs, but it's not sufficient. As noted by the social linguist Ingrid Pillar, those who were condemned to silence and who are excluded from full community participation are rarely excluded on the basis of language alone. Linguistic injustice works hand in glove with the injustices of gender, class and race. We can think again about Parveen and how gender, class and origin, affected the stereotype representations made of her and in general how they affect her social integration. So when we think of the need to provide language courses, we must adopt an inclusive approach to really ensure that all barriers are overcome. That there are no practical, financial, physical, security related, structural, institutional or socio cultural obstacles to prevent learners from participating in and completing an education program. However, this inclusive approach is complicated by the prevalent prejudices and the fog theories about second language acquisition among adults. It is common to hear that age can be a barrier or is the major problem in learning a language for adults, or that the lack of prior schooling of a large part of the migrant and refugee population seriously hinders them learning of the languages of reception. The little existing research on literacy refutes the idea that age or previous non schooling are explanatory factors for the learning problems that students of this type of encounter. But these beliefs can themselves become a barrier to overcome since they contribute to the idea that the lack of language acquisition is predominantly the speaker's responsibility. If it is generally accepted that people such as Parveen are too old and too poorly educated to learn a new language, it can be normalized that little ads can be done to reverse the situation. In order to better analyze the role that language plays in refugees and migrants social integration. We look more closely at Parveen's needs and expectations, which contrasts strongly with the stereotype representations of migrants. Representing Parveen by her isolation and lack of linguistic knowledge, problematizes her social and linguistic integration as due to her shortcomings, and not the barriers that society imposes on her. Parveen's case allows us to gain insight into some of these structural barriers. Such as poor access to the labor market, housing difficulties or limited social support. But the prevalent prejudices and public opinion about second language acquisition among adults, contribute to the idea that the lack of language acquisition is predominantly the speaker's responsibility. In this way, expectations and causes designed for people like Parveen, can easily be lowered by the institutions. In the same way, the dropout rate of these causes can be easily accepted without looking for what other factors are affecting it. But research demonstrates that the reasons behind problematic linguistic integration are complex and linked to barriers that society imposes and not the migrants own shortcomings. For example, in research on language provision causes in Scotland, the authors conclude that even when the Scottish Government addresses immediate financial hurdles to accessing causes, other barriers persist, such as the legal status issues, health or wellbeing factors or precarious housing, among many others. If we come back to Parveen's situation, we can see how the two way process dimension of social and linguistic integration, demanded by the Council of Europe has not been achieved by the receiving society. Parveen has not found linguistic support in any of the institutions she has to deal with and her daily life, not in the relevant authorities concerning evictions, not on the labor market, not on a children's school. Nor on the health and social care institutions for her husband. To round up our session, let's now reflect on what this session has presented through the following questions. How do you think social institutions could help the process of linguistic integration of refugees and migrants? How would you justify the not sufficient in the phrase? However, mastery of the language is not enough. It is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition. Third, explain the phrase, linguistic injustice works hand in glove with the injustices of gender, class and race and give an example. And fourth, can you name other structural barriers than those referred to in the session? [MUSIC]
