The Politics of Host Language Teaching and Learning and Belonging: A Case Study with Adult Migrants and Refugees Learning Portuguese in the North of Portugal

Abstract

Learning the host language is a crucial factor in the settlement of migrants and refugees in a new country. It offers opportunities, but can also generate exclusion, marginalization, and isolation, hindering the possibilities of participation and the creation of social networks. Host language classes, therefore, play a crucial role, fostering critical awareness that enables learners to act within their social and cultural context. This promotes agency, autonomy, and empowerment, transforming differences into productivity and fostering social justice. This article focuses on classes of Portuguese as a host language (HL) in northern Portugal, examining how these contexts shape learners’ relationship with the language beyond depoliticized or subaltern approaches. It discusses the main obstacles and difficulties in these educational settings, as well as mechanisms that could contribute to more democratic and effective practices. Drawing on interviews with teachers (n = 10), trainers (n = 4), volunteers (n = 8), and students (n = 20) involved in the HL learning process, the content analysis highlights how policies and pedagogical practices impact students and how they are interpreted by these actors, revealing their impact on processes of participation, belonging, and citizenship. The results indicate an emergent form of collective autonomy in the relationship among students, the host society, and teachers, which means that teaching practices encompass not only the development of communication skills but also the civic and political awareness of learners. Lastly, while the language teachers identified more practical barriers in these teaching and learning contexts, the students described emotional and sociocultural obstacles.

1. Introduction

Across Europe, there has been a noticeable increase in the influx of people from other continents seeking a new home in this region [1,2]. Portugal exemplifies this reality: commonly regarded as a country of emigration, it experienced a shift in its migration dynamics when it reached a positive migration balance in 2017, with a 6% increase in the foreign resident population. This phenomenon had not occurred since 2010 [3]. As a result, there was an increase in the availability of language learning programs throughout Europe aimed at facilitating access to the labor market and enhancing cohesion, social harmony, and the active participation of newcomers [4].

Portuguese language teaching for migrants was also affected by this new demographic wave. At that time, the existing “Português para Todos” (PPT) program was supplemented by the Portuguese Online Platform, which offered learning modules in various formats for elementary or independent users residing in Portugal [5]. Later, with the implementation of the National Implementation Plan of the Global Compact for Migration, the PPT was replaced by the “Português Língua de Acolhimento” (PLA) program, which, among other changes, extended to include foreign citizens aged 16 and above [6]. Indeed, investing in the host country’s official language training is essential, as it involves more than just learning a language: in this context, the HL classes encompass cultural, social, civic, and political aspects [7,8]. The HL, therefore, reflects both the learner and the society that welcomes migrants and refugees [9,10,11]. Esser [12] also describes it as a symbol that reflects elements, states, situations, and as a source for accessing valuable resources. As such, the HL plays a role as linguistic capital, not only enabling communication but also granting access to social and economic opportunities [13] through the establishment and development of social relationships, access to the labor market, and recognition of the individual in the new society [10,14,15]. Therefore, the HL is undeniably present in the processes of integration and inclusion of newcomers in the host country.

Just as migrants and refugees have a role in establishing themselves in the new society, the host society also plays a part: integration and inclusion involve both those arriving and those receiving [16,17,18] and are thus bidirectional. Integration extends across several dimensions, corresponding to the more urgent and immediate needs that migrants and refugees may have, such as access to the labor market, housing, education for children and youth, and healthcare [16]. Inclusion, on the other hand, involves well-being, safety, participation, and the development of a sense of belonging in the new society, which enhances self-confidence, autonomy, agency, and empowerment [19,20,21,22]. HL, a common element in both processes, provides access to the integration dimensions and, by enabling the establishment of social relationships, allows migrants and refugees to feel part of a larger community, expanding their perception of identity and possibilities for action [23]. In this context, the relationship between the settlement of these groups in the host society, the HL, and how this learning occurs, is worth noting [24]. A critical reflection is necessary on whether HL teaching promotes truly emancipatory learning that considers students’ autonomy, without reinforcing dynamics of domination and assimilation. The works of Freire [25] and Bourdieu [13] point precisely to this issue by highlighting how (language) education can reinforce power and exclusion dynamics. This promotion of students’ autonomy is questioned by the multiple identities present in the classroom and how these are brought into contact, preventing forced cultural assimilation and facilitating the development of individual empowerment [26]. This idea is further reinforced by Freire [25], who emphasizes the importance of an emancipatory, critical, and reflective pedagogy that fosters the subject’s holistic development. Such an approach positions HL teaching as a means to advance equality, active citizenship, and the integration of migrants and refugees [25,27,28].

Throughout this article, we reflect on the relationship between the autonomy of the classroom and that of the HL learners, considering a relationship with the language that is politicized but not subaltern, and that faces challenges, obstacles, and difficulties inherent to the context itself. We examine pedagogical practices, their impacts, and how different actors involved in this process interpret them, through empirical data gathered from teachers, trainers, volunteers, and students in Northern Portugal. Then, this study examines how different actors involved in HL provision (teachers, trainers, volunteers, and learners) interpret their roles and the pedagogical dynamics that shape learning. To do so, we address the following research questions: (i) how do pedagogical practices in HL settings influence learners’ autonomy, agency, and experiences of inclusion? (ii) in what ways do teachers, trainers, volunteers, and learners perceive the challenges, obstacles, and possibilities of HL teaching and learning? (iii) what forms of empowerment or subalternization emerge within these learning spaces?

2. Materials and Methods

The data analyzed in this article were collected through semi-structured interviews conducted between 2022 and 2025 in northern Portugal with all the actors involved in the educational process of HL learning. These lasted between 20 and 40 min and included teachers (n = 10), trainers from specialized training centers and the Institute of Employment and Vocational Training (IEFP) (n = 4), volunteers from social and community organizations that teach Portuguese to adult migrants and refugees (n = 8), and the learners themselves (n = 20). The interview guides were developed with consideration for the group of participants we were going to talk with, and we described the main topics we wanted to hear about. It contained some examples of questions we could ask the participants, if that were the case. The participants were recruited through purposive sampling to capture different perspectives on the provision of Portuguese as a Host Language. Initially, institutional contacts were established with schools, training centers, NGOs, and community organizations offering HL courses. After explaining and presenting the study to various institutions, teachers, trainers, and volunteers were invited to participate via email dissemination, and learners were informed through in-person announcements during class sessions.

The study involved a heterogeneous group of participants, ranging in age from 18 to 70. Regarding teachers and trainers, we interviewed 11 women and 2 men, who varied greatly in their academic background. We spoke with nine Portuguese language teachers, trained to teach Portuguese to native speakers, three teachers of Portuguese and other foreign languages, and one teacher of Portuguese for foreigners. Their experience was also quite diverse, as some teachers were teaching the subject for the first time, while others had been doing so for at least five years. Some of the volunteers (five) were also teachers, while the other three were not trained as teachers. The inclusion criterion we defined was that these professionals would have to be teaching Portuguese as a host language during the academic year at the time of the interview. Finally, the students came from 12 different countries, including Argentina, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, France, India, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Africa, Ukraine, the United States of America, and Venezuela. We spoke with 12 men and 8 women. Their length of stay in Portugal was also very diverse, ranging from 1 month to 7 years. The inclusion criterion was that these participants had to be enrolled in Portuguese classes during the school year at the time of the interview or during the previous school year. There were 12 students from public schools, 3 from NGOs, and 5 from community organizations. It is essential to note that we interviewed teachers, volunteers, and students from the same educational contexts.

The methodological choice to conduct semi-structured interviews was based on the potential of this instrument, which, by constructing meaning from the lived experiences of the interviewees [29], allows for an understanding not only of the individual being interviewed but also of the broader social sphere in which they are embedded [30]. Ethical concerns, confidentiality, and anonymity were ensured through the use of informed consent forms, which were signed by both the interviewee and the institution with which they were affiliated. All interviews were recorded with an audio recorder for transcription and subsequent analysis. Regarding the interviews conducted with HL students, these were held in English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese (upon participants’ request); additionally, digital translation tools such as Google Translate and DeepL were occasionally used. Various themes were addressed depending on the interviewee, all of which informed a broader research project. However, three major themes emerged in all interviews: HL in the context of migration and/or refuge, integration and inclusion in the host society, and, finally, citizenship, sense of belonging, and individual rights.

Content analysis was carried out inductively, taking into account emerging categories and the search for patterns [31]. To achieve this, we began by transcribing all the data and reading all the material. We then interpreted it through coding and categorization using NVivo software. Each group of participants had its own specific categories, although two categories—“host language classes” and “host language”—were common to all groups. Additionally, two more categories—“integration and inclusion” and “learner profile”—were familiar to those who taught.

We believe that this work has some methodological limitations, some potential selection bias of the participating students: teachers, trainers, and volunteers may have selected some students who spoke best and were more linguistically confident, less shy, and positively engaged with host language experiences. In other cases, linguistic barriers may have affected the depth of some interviews or the participants’ ability to fully articulate their experiences.

In the following section, we will analyze and later discuss the data collected, focusing on the key themes of this article: educational autonomy, the politicization and/or subalternation of HL teaching, and the obstacles and challenges encountered in these educational contexts. These three dimensions surfaced during a broader, ongoing PhD project on HL teaching and learning in northern Portugal. Through iterative engagement with interviews, content analysis, and documents, we gradually noticed that these issues consistently appeared across different participants and contexts. Consequently, while not formally established as analytical categories at the outset, they became useful conceptual lenses for interpreting the findings and structuring the discussion in this article.

3. Results

In this section, based on the data obtained from actors involved in the HL teaching-learning process and the integration and inclusion of adult migrants and refugees in Portugal, we will present the results. The aim is to pave the way for the Discussion section, where we will reflect in an informed and critical manner on the autonomy, agency, emancipation, and empowerment of learners of Portuguese as a host language, taking into account HL classes and their participation in the community. This section is divided into three subsections, corresponding to the three topics of analysis in this study: educational autonomy, political and/or subaltern education, and, lastly, difficulties.

3.1. Educational Autonomy

The data revealed different ways of conceiving autonomy in HL classrooms. For teachers, it is conceptualized as a collective process between the teacher and the student, in which cooperation between these actors and the interactive social processes that occur within the classroom transform the learning space into a space for socialization that strengthens students’ confidence.

“In these classes, we try to work on everyday language situations, from going to the bank or the post office to going to a restaurant or a supermarket. (…) Situations are created, and the language is worked on in these dynamics, in which the person learns and tries to acquire vocabulary related to these specific situations.”1

—PBr5.

“Peer work within the classroom, cooperation, is an added value.”

See note 1 above—PCh1.

“We try to talk about all the vocabulary that helps them at work, because many of them, almost all of them, are working in factories, so entering, leaving, coffee break, or break.”

See note 1 above—PV1.

Teachers also mentioned the need for curricular flexibility and adaptation to the specific needs of adult migrant learners. This is not always easily achievable in the classroom, and the participants mentioned how they circumvented the rigidity of the program, thereby enabling the implementation of personalized approaches.

“In addition to following our basic program, we often focus more on what they ask of us, which is to integrate them into society so that they are well… well received.”

See note 1 above—PV1

“We talk a lot about how to learn some expressions that they can then use at work.”

See note 1 above—PBr2.

“We follow the defined program but not strictly, because we have to adapt to it.”

See note 1 above—VSC1.

“We follow the Português Língua de Acolhimento program, although adaptations and adjustments are often made according to the group. (…) For me, it does not make sense to have rigid classes and not meet the students halfway.”

See note 1 above—VSM1.

“The course is extremely varied because it is carefully designed and tailored to the needs that arise and the questions that come up.”

See note 1 above—TF1.

Regarding the students, they conceive autonomy differently. For them, this is an essential individual aspect of independence and freedom in the host society, which brings them closer to the new society.

“For me, talking to other people is a condition of independence and freedom.”

See note 1 above—AF1.

“Because now we are working in a shop. All dealers come, they also have Portuguese. I feel good about speaking in Portuguese. It is important to me.”

—AI1.

“When you do not speak the native language of a place, a country, any language, you feel bad, as if you were on an island.”

See note 1 above—AC2.

“I’ve been to the post office, and because the majority of people do understand English, they just speak Portuguese. And I’m trying to communicate, and I’m using Google Translate, and it’s difficult, and they keep speaking Portuguese, and I find it is a problem.”

—AAS3.

It is therefore linked to the establishment processes, which involve overcoming linguistic, social, and cultural barriers. Autonomy is also recognized as an essential factor in developing a sense of belonging and self-confidence, enabling more meaningful interactions in the host society. Thereby, it is possible to understand how autonomy and individual agency are connected.

“If you don’t speak the language, you are excluded from society. (…) Now I can make conversations in the language, and it becomes easier to be able to interact in the places where I go and to build confidence.”

—AN1.

“Not speaking Portuguese is a major obstacle to forming social relationships. Speaking Portuguese in a store is not a very significant social interaction. (…) Talking to people is a form of integration, it’s a big part of integration and, therefore, of being part of a community.”

See note 1 above—AF1.

“It has helped me to develop my relationship with my customer and to gain more customers, uh, being, uh, to after learning this, the language. It helps a lot to develop my business and to grow myself and my business, yeah. (…) It helped me everywhere. From my business, from residence, to find a good place to live, or a house, and to go to grocery shops, everywhere, it helps me.”

—AI3.

3.2. Political and/or Subaltern Education?

Although the data obtained from teachers, trainers, and volunteers did not clearly mention any political aspect of the HL, it was possible to acknowledge how these professionals felt about this topic. They began by describing the “crossing of cultures” that occurs within the classroom.

“We ended up getting to know each other’s cultures very well. We all learned from each other’s cultures there. Often, when I notice, everyone is already talking about these differences.”

See note 1 above—PBr6.

“There’s sharing of information about different cultures, then sharing of information about Portuguese culture…”

See note 1 above—PBr3.

“Sometimes we even play games (…) to bring a little bit of our tradition to them, and yes, they also talk about their traditions (…). There is a crossing of cultures.”

See note 1 above—VSC1.

These professionals also explored the connection between HL, citizenship, and participation. Then, they explained how the host language is a requirement for escaping marginalization and isolation.

“I think the host language has a huge impact, because it is a way for them to feel less marginalized and less different.”

See note 1 above—PCh1.

“When people from other countries want to integrate into a new community, the better they master the language, the more involved they can be, the more critical they can be, and the more informed they will be. In this sense, learning the language allows them to break out of the ghetto of their nationality of origin.”

See note 1 above—VSC2.

“There are many people who are interested in working or studying here and who feel that knowing the language will help them get around much better.”

See note 1 above—VH1.

“These classes and the courses are places where the students can ask questions about culture, history, geography… if they want to know more about how things work, the classes are the place to ask that. (…) These courses are essential for them to feel integrated, welcomed, and acknowledged, what works in the area where they live.”

See note 1 above—TF1.

In the case of a specific community organization that provides HL classes for migrants and refugees, this social and political role of language became even more apparent. Volunteers from this organization emphasized a completely different perspective, mentioning that HL teaching cannot be detached from the social conditions of the students and their access to fundamental rights, such as housing, work, and healthcare.

“As an organization that advocates for the right to housing and fights for access to housing, which is closely linked to many other issues and is recognized as a right that is only possible when all other rights are associated with it, namely the right to the city, and therefore to central access to services, work, and also the legalization of all immigrants, for us it is impossible to talk about Portuguese without talking a little about all of this.”

See note 1 above—VH3.

“In our classes, we seek to find moments, preferably arising from those who participate (…), in which we can debate and discuss the reality of what it means to be an immigrant in Portugal, what it means to be an immigrant worker in Portugal, and what it is like to be an immigrant worker in Portugal who is also a tenant.”

See note 1 above—VH2.

These classes link language competence development with political awareness, providing information on rights and bureaucratic processes, and encouraging learners to participate in assemblies organized by the association.

“As a political organization, we are concerned that these spaces contribute in some way to the development of political awareness.”

See note 1 above—VH2.

“The first thing we did was write on the board that in Portugal there are currently around 720,000 vacant properties. They did not know that this number corresponded to vacant houses, but what did we do? The first exercise was to write 720,000. (…) It was exciting because when we asked them to write it out in full, they were all pleased, as they already knew how to write the number. Not only could they write it, but they also knew what it meant, which is what we want too. (…) We want them to understand the cause of the organization and to join us in defending housing. Therefore, starting by knowing how many vacant properties there are is a start.”

See note 1 above—VH1.

“The course is a space, and our assemblies are too, are not they? The assemblies are more like a space not for training and education, but rather an open space for participation and integration. Perhaps they are important spaces because they are probably the only people who speak Portuguese.”

See note 1 above—VH3.

Regarding human rights, the interviews examined how language teachers perceived their role in promoting awareness of human rights and the extent to which their classrooms provided opportunities for civic engagement. While teachers and trainers acknowledged the connection between language learning and human rights, this link was not fully explored; it appeared mainly as a thematic focus, especially for students with refugee backgrounds, in the planning.

“Yes, human rights and host language are very much connected.”

See note 1 above—PBr1.

“This is one of the themes we explored on the next levels.”

See note 1 above—PBr4.

“We have many students who are sensitive to the human rights theme, because they are refugees (…) and because their human rights, or the lack of these rights, was the reason why they have come to our country.”

See note 1 above—PBr4.

In contrast, volunteers explicitly connected HL learning to the promotion of these rights and social inclusion, providing students with information about their entitlements and encouraging critical reflection on issues affecting their lives.

“I think this language learning (…) helps to understand that when we talk about human rights it is about defending human rights and it does not just help foreign students, but also helps us realize that we dealing with a group of people who need to be welcomed, not in a paternalistic way, but because they are citizens and share the same rights as us. The more these people’s rights are respected, the more our rights will be respected. (…) And the faster these students learn the language, the faster they will be able to defend themselves and their rights.”

See note 1 above—VSC2.

“It is a human right to be integrated, to be well integrated, if we want to go and work somewhere other than our own country. This could be a human right, could not it? Speaking the language means having someone who can really teach us the language, and so I would not say it is a human right, but it is definitely related to human rights. Because then it is that thing, I mean, if we do not know how to speak the language, we may not have access to many other rights that are human rights, right, like the right to housing, for example.”

See note 1 above—VH1.

“Regardless of who we are talking about, a person who is here, regardless of location, must be guaranteed a set of access: they must be guaranteed access to housing, they must have access to work, they must have access to their community and to inclusion and health, and so on. (…) And, as a whole, we can say that these are human rights, and I agree that they should be human rights. Therefore, I believe that it should be a human right to have access to language and not need to be able to pay for a course to ensure inclusion and integration in the host country.”

See note 1 above—VH2.

Data from the interviews with HL learners also revealed a duality in the learning process, as HL learning is situated at the intersection of education and politics. On the one hand, learners perceive the HL as a means of integration and inclusion, enabling them to access the community and be recognized as legitimate members.

“Would be important to me to answer those questions, and knowing more Portuguese would help me to interact and feel accepted by the community.”

—AEU1.

“When a person talks to other people, they do not feel completely like a stranger. Talking to people is a form of integration, it is a big part of integration and, therefore, of being part of a community.”

See note 1 above—AF1.

“The thing is, when you cannot speak to someone, you cannot connect with the community.”

—AP1.

On the other hand, they question whether this same process exposes the politicalization of language learning, as well as its potential to reproduce existing hierarchies. This reflects a dilemma experienced by learners who become aware that mastering the HL learning is not merely an educational goal, but is also a matter of legitimacy and worth, through which belonging and recognition are negotiated.

“You know that a lot of the people here appreciate the fact that if you put in the effort, you know to speak their language, and it does not matter on what level.”

—AAS3.

“I see a lot of Portuguese people who are here, and they do not speak English. It’s tough for us. (…) It feels better for me because, in our field, speaking Portuguese gives you a level of expertise. It is better for you.”

—AI1.

“If you are not part of a community, everything becomes more complicated, more difficult.”

See note 1 above—AV2.

“When you do not understand what people are saying, you simply walk away.”

See note 1 above—AC2.

“I don’t know Portuguese that well yet, so there are many times where my lack of Portuguese has made me feel like a tourist.”

—AEU1.

The perception that linguistic proficiency influences social acceptance transforms the classroom into a space where power, identity, and citizenship are continually redefined. This ambivalence situates HL learning between emancipation and subordination, as it empowers learners to use their voice and agency, while reinforcing asymmetries of power, where linguistic competence becomes a criterion of belonging and a source of symbolic power. This separates those who are recognized from those who remain “outsiders”.

3.3. Difficulties

Throughout the data collection process, it became clear that the difficulties identified in the interviews extended far beyond the simple acquisition of linguistic competence. Teachers, trainers, volunteers, coordinators, and even students highlighted structural, sociocultural, and emotional barriers in HL teaching and learning processes.

“The difficulties sometimes lie in cultural issues. (…) We begin to learn a little more about this culture or that culture and start to understand what we can and cannot say or do with people from this or that culture. But sometimes that is where the greatest difficulty lies: in the cultural clash that exists.”

See note 1 above—VSM1.

“I currently do babysit, so being able to then talk back and forth with people, like for instance, online to find someone who needed someone to look after their child (…) but it was much easier to be able to go to locals and ask them if they needed help with their children.”

—AAS1.

“Yes, in some places where I have to explain myself. And the guys do not get it because they do not know English. You have to use Portuguese sometimes, and I am not very comfortable.”

—AI2.

“Today, I went to take out the printouts, and I was not able to explain to the lady officer to take the printouts and my work. And she, when I speak English, she maybe, she did not understand, and I came back without doing much.”

—AI3

“It happens at the factory where I work: they talk very fast, and I cannot understand them. What happens? I am cleaning the offices, (…) and the technicians are talking, laughing, something. And maybe they’re commenting on something and expecting me to comment. “Oh, sorry. Were you talking? No, no, no.” I was listening, but I did not understand what they were saying because they were talking too fast.”

See note 1 above—AA1.

“I kind of felt guilty because people were having to talk to me in English.”

—AEU1.

“When I do not understand what people are saying, for example. When I have nothing in common with the people around me, I feel excluded.”

See note 1 above—AF1.

The professionals even mentioned the lack of suitable teaching materials for an adult audience, the rigidity of curriculum guidance, and the diversity of the student population—particularly in terms of literacy levels and prior educational backgrounds.

“The classes are heterogeneous, so each student’s mother tongue is very different, and this can either facilitate or hinder language learning. The fact that some have been here for some time, while others have not, also plays a role. And then there is their basic education: some are more educated than others, and this often facilitates learning.”

See note 1 above—PIE2.

“From the point of view of language learning, we face many, many difficulties. This is because we increasingly have immigrant students who come from countries where they speak neither Portuguese, English, nor French.”

See note 1 above—PBr1.

“I think that it is the biggest challenge, the materials that are available and the linguistic diversity within a classroom.”

See note 1 above—PCh1.

“Another difficulty is that often the trainees who are here and have access to classes have not formally learned another language, or have learned English, but in a very different way, and this also ends up causing a certain degree of difficulty.”

See note 1 above—VSC2.

“I also have difficulties, for example, with people—this also has to do with the education they have or don’t have and the social environment they come from.”

See note 1 above—VSC1.

In the next section, we will examine the results presented above in detail and confront them with the existing literature.

4. Discussion

Overall, these results suggest an ambivalent role for the HL: while it enables autonomy, belonging, and participation, it can also perpetuate mechanisms of inequality and subalternity. These contradictions invite a deeper reflection on the political and pedagogical meanings of HL learning and a more explicit examination of how HL practices unfold across the three themes that structure this discussion: (1) the development of learners’ autonomy, (2) the role of HL as a form of political education that is conscious and critical without becoming subalternizing, and (3) the obstacles and challenges that constrain these processes.

In this next section, we will interpret these findings in light of critical and emancipatory perspectives, seeking to understand how HL classrooms can move beyond functional language acquisition to become spaces that strengthen autonomy, promote a politicised yet non-subaltern relationship with the language, and address the structural and pedagogical obstacles experienced by those learning and teaching.

4.1. Autonomy

Autonomy in foreign language learning is defined by Benson [32] (p. 58) as “the capacity to take charge of, or responsibility for, one’s own learning”. In the context of migration and the integration and inclusion of adults into a new society, the question arises as to whether access to HL learning can be meaningful, citizen-centered, and democratic—where there is active engagement, not only with the language itself but also with the host society, encompassing cultural and civic practices and addressing the challenges of integration and inclusion [4,33]. Thus, autonomy requires overcoming various obstacles related to both the educational process and the sociopolitical context in which learners are situated [33,34]. The data revealed that teachers tend to conceptualize autonomy not as an individual attribute, but as a collective and relational process built through cooperation, interaction, and socialization within the learning space. These dynamics transform the HL classroom into a place where language learning is closely linked to everyday practices and to the development of practical, communicative, and social competences [7,14,35].

Regarding the curricular guidelines, the results highlighted a recurring tension between the prescribed HL program and the need for pedagogical flexibility. While teachers recognized the importance of having a structured framework to guide HL classes, they also emphasized the necessity of adapting content and methods to the learners’ social realities, linguistic repertoires, and everyday needs. Therefore, teachers must transform their theoretical and empirical knowledge into practical knowledge that meets these demands, placing them in a challenging and extraordinary position [7,14,26,36]. This tension highlights a structural contradiction between the policy level, which focuses on standardization and assessment, and the pedagogical level, where responsiveness and contextualization are essential for meaningful learning [9]. It also poses curricular guidelines as a mechanism of constraint, limiting teachers’ autonomy and the dialogical potential of the learning process, as Freire [25] argues, while at the same time they provide legitimacy and coherence to HL teaching.

On the other hand, learners perceive autonomy through their individual agency in the host society, particularly in overcoming various types of barriers (linguistic, social, cultural, professional, civic, and political). In this context, HL learning is viewed as a crucial factor in fostering self-confidence, facilitating more meaningful interactions, and promoting a sense of belonging [34]. In line with this, Kuhlmann [27] argues that HL learning is essential not only for developing communicative competence in the host country’s official language but also for enhancing overall language proficiency. Instead, it plays a central role in improving learners’ autonomy as individual agents, enabling them to navigate social, educational, and institutional contexts with greater independence. Nevertheless, some interviewees mentioned challenges that hinder the development of autonomy, agency, and self-confidence: the fear of making mistakes in oral communication was identified as a recurring obstacle, sometimes leading to feelings of frustration and hesitation in using HL in daily life. In this scenario, it is crucial to ensure that the classroom serves not only as a space for knowledge transmission but also as a space for active participation and agency, where social and linguistic competences intersect with civic engagement, enabling students to negotiate meanings, express opinions, and participate in collective decision-making processes [11,33]. This is essential so that HL teaching is not reduced to mere language skills acquisition. It should be a critical space for negotiation and dialogue [25] that contributes to the learner’s social and political autonomy and emancipation.

4.2. Political or Subaltern Education?

Just as language serves as a means of integration and inclusion by empowering learners, it can also be conceived and used as a tool of exclusion, reinforcing hierarchies and establishing power dynamics between those who master the language and those who do not [13,37,38,39]. This aspect requires critical reflection on teaching practices that may, even unintentionally, reinforce relations of power and subalternation. It is, therefore, essential to acknowledge and value the linguistic and cultural background of learners—an issue that, according to Damiani [40] and Beacco et al. [41], has a direct impact on their identity. As we saw, the professionals we spoke to did not mention this aspect directly, but it was possible to infer it from what they said to us. The “crossing of cultures,” as described by teachers and trainers, involved the negotiation of meanings and identities in practice, illustrating that learning a new language was also a process of reconstructing one’s identity. We also questioned whether HL mastery served as a “passport” to integration and inclusion, and whether it might, conversely, contribute to maintaining social asymmetries. The line dividing those who master the language and those who do not may reinforce social barriers and set conditions for acceptance and inclusion. A critical, inclusive, and politically oriented approach is therefore necessary, so that the learning process is not confined to functional communication but truly promotes active participation and citizenship in society [7,10,14,41,42].

In that one specific community organization, communication difficulties emerged as barriers to full participation in the host society. Within this context, language assumed a pivotal role in political empowerment and social justice. The volunteers who coordinated those HL classes explained how the limits of HL teaching as a tool of autonomous and emancipatory struggle were questioned—especially in terms of whether it can challenge structural inequalities and support integration and inclusion processes while ensuring a commitment to individual rights. This resonates with Freire’s [25] concept of education as a practice of freedom, where learning emerges from dialogue and reflection upon lived realities. In this case, learners are active subjects who co-construct meaning and agency within a collective process, developing not only their communicative skills but also the ability to speak, be heard, and act within the public sphere [43].

It is also along this bridge that HL teaching and learning becomes a space for participation, where the political dimension enables learners to access public space and to speak [44,45]. According to Arendt et al. [44], this facet of HL enables individuals to engage in public debate, claim their rights, and take a stance on the issues affecting their lives. During the interviews with teachers, trainers, and volunteers, we asked whether they saw a connection between HL and human rights. The responses revealed different perspectives: while teachers and trainers did not see themselves as educators of rights, rejecting the transformative potential of a rights-based education and describing a limited relationship between HL and rights (restricted to individual well-being and the right to education) [46], volunteers offered a completely different view. They explicitly linked integration and inclusion to human rights, providing students with more information and helping them become more aware and critical of their rights. This difference in perception largely reflects how HL itself is conceptualized in different educational contexts. In some settings, HL teaching is confined to basic linguistic competence, while in others, HL becomes a means for raising awareness and claiming rights—supported by the development of a sense of belonging in the host society, grounded in social and community engagement and the defense of individual rights. In these latter cases, HL is also understood as a practice of political consciousness, and the learning space becomes a space of clarification and social support, where learners can discuss and gain clarity on their rights and responsibilities.

The students suggested that HL classes are expected to emerge as spaces for developing critical awareness, promoting not only linguistic agency but also social and political agency. In this sense, HL learning is perceived as a practice of citizenship, fostering participation, autonomy, and recognition [9,25,28]. This explains the connection developed by Freire [25] between education and political acts, where language learning is inseparable from learning how to speak within its social and ideological frameworks. In addition, the data revealed that this emancipatory potential often coexists with dynamics of subordination, where HL learning can empower students to use their voice and increase their visibility, while also exposing them to new forms of dependency and symbolic inequality. Norton [43] had already mentioned this when he explained that language is not neutral, since it is embedded in social relations that define who is heard, recognized, and what, under what conditions. This places HL mastery as a test of belonging, or, as Bourdieu [13] puts it, as a form of symbolic capital that determines access to legitimacy and participation. Consequently, based on the data obtained from the students, the classroom emerges as a political arena where inclusion and exclusion are simultaneously negotiated, and learners navigate between acquiring communicative competence and developing an acceptable identity that is consistent with the host society. Semedo [37] and Arendt et al. [44] explained how HL education navigates a continuum from emancipation (fostering agency) to subalternation (reinforcing asymmetries of power). This characteristic, also visible in the results obtained, amplifies the HL classroom into a space that defines the politics of belonging.

4.3. Challenges

As we have shown, because HL functions both as a means of integration and inclusion and as a complex field where dynamics of power and exclusion emerge, it can simultaneously serve as a tool for empowerment and as a barrier—especially when the demands and challenges of learning intersect with the learners’ sociopolitical and personal contexts. In this sense, the obstacles and difficulties that arise throughout the HL teaching-learning process directly impact students’ integration and inclusion, both professionally, socially, and politically [7,27,42], limiting their active participation in the host society [11,45].

Throughout the results, it became clear that the challenges identified by the interviewees extended far beyond the simple acquisition of linguistic competence. The findings revealed how structural conditions may constrain the emancipatory potential of HL teaching, reinforcing barriers, hierarchies, and inequalities by failing to offer a critical, democratic, and emancipatory learning space [25,44]. Furthermore, they reflected how language policies do not always guarantee full inclusion in the host society—not only because they can be exclusionary, as we have seen, but also because they fail to respond to the complex identities of learners [47]. In this light, learners described HL learning as part of the integration and inclusion process—but not that structural barriers persist even after language mastery, continuing to hinder access to housing, the labor market, and legal regularization. To what extent can HL proficiency alone guarantee the whole exercise of citizenship and inclusion in the host society?

As noted in the Introduction section, the processes of integration and inclusion are distinct yet complementary [19,48]: integration is incomplete without inclusion, and vice versa. As the inclusion process is more abstract and relates to the development of a sense of belonging and individual well-being, it is crucial to reflect on how HL contributes to that feeling—and what its limits may be. The data collected from HL students revealed that promoting interaction with peers and encouraging contact with native speakers enhances social capital exchange while also developing communicative and interactive skills. Some participants reported feelings of frustration and hesitation in speaking due to fear of making mistakes and a lack of proficiency. Opportunities for interaction and the resulting social capital exchange are described by Kindler et al. [49] and by Strang and Quinn [50] as meaningful, as they generate support networks. Moreover, it is through these social exchanges that learners access important cultural, social, civic, and political information—essential for a better understanding of the host society and for strengthening active participation in all areas of life [49]. Thus, HL learning extends beyond the classroom, expanding into informal educational contexts and enabling students to acquire critical information about rights, duties, and available resources in the host country [51]. Here, interactions become a bridge between language learning and sociopolitical integration and inclusion [39,52].

Furthermore, participation in the host society becomes more critical and informed as social, cultural, and identity bonds are established with the host society, leading to more positive interactions. Lambert et al. [53] describe how the presence of positive social relationships contributes to a subjective and secure sense of belonging to a broader symbolic entity. For this reason, Sorgen [54] defines HL as belonging itself, where identity (re)emerges as multiple [55] and hybrid [56]. This identity is deeply connected to possibilities for social, civic, and political participation in the host society, including access to employment, public spaces, and civic and political life [57]. Hybridity and multiplicity, in turn, can be seen as a space of negotiation between different and political references—fostering new forms of belonging and civic-political engagement [58].

Taken together, the three dimensions we exposed in the Discussion section highlight how HL education operates at the intersection of autonomy, political awareness, and structural and pedagogical challenges. The difficulties highlighted by participants teaching the language, such as language barriers, a lack of teaching materials, and the diverse needs of students, constrain educational autonomy as they limit opportunities for active engagement, negotiation of meaning, and meaningful interaction within the classroom. These obstacles not only affect the development of linguistic competence but also hinder learners’ individual agency in social, civic, and institutional contexts [13,32]. At the same time, the Results and Discussion sections also underlined emancipatory practices as particularly important in mitigating these effects. The promotion of dialogue, the recognition of learners’ linguistic repertoires, and the connection between language learning and civic and social participation help strengthen autonomy and foster a politically conscious, yet non-subaltern, engagement with the host society. The creation of safe, participatory, and emancipatory learning spaces enables learners to navigate obstacles, build confidence, and acquire not only language skills but also social and political agency [25,43].

In conclusion, HL can be described as a space of citizenship [59,60], where the teaching-learning process transcends instrumental purposes and becomes a mediating space between identity(ies), belonging(s), and participation.

5. Conclusions

In this article, we sought to reflect on the relationship between the autonomy of the educational space and of those learning the HL, as well as on the relationship with the HL that is politicized, yet not subaltern. We also considered the obstacles, challenges, and difficulties reported by those involved in the HL teaching-learning process in Portugal. Based on data collected through semi-structured interviews, we collated the teaching experiences of public school teachers, trainers from the Institute of Employment and Vocational Training and specialized technical training centers, volunteers from various social and community organizations teaching Portuguese as a host language to foreign nationals arriving in Portugal, and finally, the learners themselves who are engaged in this process across different institutions.

As this study was conducted in northern Portugal, the findings may not be transferable to other regions of the country or to other European countries, due to differences in migration profiles, educational policies, and available resources. Nonetheless, some of the broader principles emphasized (such as the importance of safe, participatory, and emancipatory learning spaces, the role of autonomy and citizenship in language learning) can inform research and practice in other contexts.

This article discusses a type of autonomy that is not only individual but also collective, emerging through interaction with peers, the host society, and the teacher, in the context of cooperation with the individual needs of learners. These interactions, by promoting well-being, trust, and responsibility, help students overcome insecurities and respond to the challenges they may face in daily life. Therefore, the classroom must be conceived as a space focused on learners’ participation and agency, marked by dialogue and the construction of an interactive learning community [61]. However, language also creates barriers and exclusion. As such, teaching practices must promote language development while also fostering both civic and political awareness. This must be a free and liberating act that (in)forms learners about their individual rights as human beings and as members of a community [25].

The sociocultural, structural and emotional obstacles reported by the various actors in HL teaching and learning can be categorized into two poles: while teachers, trainers, and volunteers point to more structural barriers related to the specific characteristics of the learner population and the rigidity of predefined curricular frameworks, learners describe emotional and sociocultural obstacles—such as frustration and hesitation—that persist even after some level of language proficiency. In this regard, and in agreement with Norton [43], more learner-sensitive pedagogical practices are needed—focused on building confidence, agency, and a sense of belonging both inside and outside the educational space, while acknowledging the affective, subjective, and political potentials of learning.

We can conclude that HL learning is not merely a process of acquiring linguistic skills. The HL teaching-learning process is a profoundly political and social phenomenon, marked by specific conceptions of integration, inclusion, citizenship, and belonging—observable in how curricular frameworks are designed, in the spaces where classes occur, and in the roles assigned to both teachers and learners. Certified courses are particularly shaped by the constraints imposed by normative frameworks and the lack of appropriate materials for this audience. On the other hand, volunteers—committed to social justice and guided by the values of their organizations—can link language learning to collective action in the defense of rights. Still, this disruptive dimension does not always materialize, as HL often continues to be seen as a practical tool or functional instrument for everyday life, reducing pedagogical action to a utilitarian field. Even in politicized contexts, the language often remains a technical instrument within a form of teaching that may still be subaltern [39,46].

The invisible barriers that limit participation in the host society, as reported by learners, position HL as a space where power relations, belonging, and exclusion are also at play. It is therefore essential to rethink HL teaching in Portugal at all levels and across all educational settings—as a political practice marked by critical civic and political awareness, sensitive to the trajectories and lived experiences of each learner, and capable of fostering belonging, emancipation, and social transformation [62].

Implications for Policy and Practice

From this article, several implications for policy and practice can be drawn. At the pedagogical level, it is essential to invest in the ongoing training of these professionals, as migration is a current reality that must be addressed effectively. It would also be important to adapt the curricular content to the concrete needs of students by incorporating activities that promote social participation, dialogue, and citizenship. Adequate pedagogical materials should be available to all learning institutions, and these spaces should be considered safe environments for students, reducing anxiety and promoting self-confidence and autonomy. Politically, it is essential to acknowledge and appreciate the linguistic and cultural diversity of newcomers and to provide access to host language learning programs for various immigrant groups. To think about citizenship as not only a formal criterion of integration, it is an important step forward in thinking about settlement processes holistically, taking into account the person who arrives.

6. Limitations and Future Research

In addition to the limitations already identified in the methodological section of this article, we also believe that there are theoretical and contextual limitations. Theoretical limitations primarily stem from the scarcity of data regarding the relationship between assimilation, integration, and inclusion. Likewise, the absence of concrete pedagogical suggestions for action by HL teachers and a deeper analysis of specific language policies represent limitations to be addressed in future work. Regarding the institutions included in this study, we opted to choose different educational contexts to obtain a richer sample. However, they were not intentionally selected for their pedagogical approach; nevertheless, they proved to work through different methods, and some were found to be relatively inclusive and participatory learning environments. There is currently no data available regarding informal educational contexts, and we believe it would be beneficial to include the perspectives of migrants from Portuguese-speaking countries. Therefore, future research should focus on these aspects, as we consider it essential to also incorporate data from these educational contexts and the experiences of migrants from Portuguese-speaking countries, in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of integration processes, autonomy, and the relationship with the Portuguese language.