An important adaptation and integration tool of the state migration policy is teaching migrants the language of the recipient country. Insufficient language knowledge and skills of migrants or their insufficient motivation to learn the language for quick adaptation and integration into the society of the recipient country is one of the main problems facing the integration policy of various states. Teaching migrants of various ages and gender at different educational levels to the language of the recipient country increases the efficiency of adaptation and integration of migrants, and also increases the level of tolerance of the major population of the country. The problem of the language training of foreign citizens in the system of state migration policy is discussed using the example of the Russian Federation and several European countries. The article analyses some features of the post-crisis migration period in the light of the current trend towards increased migration from countries of origin that do not have close historical, linguistic and cultural ties with the recipient country, as well as the reasons for the differences in language integration policy, the motivation of migrants to learn the language and existing approaches to the language integration of migrants. The existing practice of preliminary language testing of future migrants is discussed.
Keywords: Adaptationintegrationlanguage trainingmigration policy
The problem of migration has recently become one of the most pressing problems, closely interconnected with other global problems that the XXI century poses to humanity. Local military conflicts, the difficult ecological and epidemiological situation, the difference in living standards in countries with developed and developing economies, the desire for family reunification are pushing people to change their place of residence and disconnect from their usual habitat. From the point of view of the sociological approach, migration is a form of social mobility, i.e. changes in the social status of an individual, group, organization or the whole country. An effective state integration policy helps to strengthen the positive impact of migration (ensuring demand on the labor market, acquiring human capital, compensating for negative demographic trends, increasing cultural diversity, developing countries which are hosting migrants, etc.) and preventing the negative consequences of migration (social stratification, security issues, spatial segregation, brain drain, labor exploitation, etc.).
The state adaptation and integration policy of any recipient country is multi-dimensional and includes social, cultural, structural and political aspects. Being a complex issue, integration policy is linked to a number of other areas of state policy, such as labor market policies, education, health, or housing policies. Meeting the educational and other needs of a migrant, a refugee, and a host population at local, national, and international levels requires resource mobilization and coordination. The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families of December 18, 1990 defines the unified legal status of migrant workers, the basic rights and freedoms of the latter, as well as the obligations of the recipient state in relation to migrant workers (International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, 1990). Also, in September 2016, 193 UN member states signed the New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants, which aims to strengthen and refine the mechanisms establishing common responsibility, and which laid the foundation for the processes of preparing two global treaties relating, respectively, to migrants and refugees (New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants, 2016).
Adaptation of migrants in the new sociocultural environment is understood as the process of changing and achieving conformity with the new cultural environment, carried out through the assimilation of new norms, values and behaviors in the process of intercultural contacts, as well as the result of this process, expressed in the degree of integration into the new cultural community on the one hand, and achieving a sense of well-being and satisfaction, on the other. Integration always is a two-way process, the success of which depends on the joint efforts of migrants and the local population. Adaptive activities of the receiving ethnic community are realized through tolerance, openness, willingness to interact with others without imposing one or another adaptation model on them.
Based on the understanding of adaptation as a degree of integration into a new cultural community on the one hand, and the achievement of a sense of well-being and satisfaction on the other, J. Berry identifies a number of indicators of adaptability. The sociocultural aspect includes contacts with representatives of one’s sociocultural group; degree of knowledge of the new language and frequency of use of the mother tongue; assessment of recognition, acceptance by local residents; installation on departure (Berry, 2002). Targeted integration activities usually include language training, vocational training, an introduction to the history, culture and general rules of receiving societies or specific programs aimed at meeting the needs of the most vulnerable groups of migrants - women and youth.
Language as a means of verbal communication becomes the cementing foundation for building a multicultural society, regardless of whether it was created as a result of long historical processes or arose as a result of external or internal migration. The growth of migration processes often creates conditions for the formation of compact settlements for migrants of various nationalities, reducing their interest in integration through learning the language of the host community. The formation of “ethnic” enterprises (labor enclaves) exacerbates this problem, allowing new-comers to do in most cases without developing communication skills in the language of the recipient society, despite the almost universally existing state requirements for knowledge of the language, history and the foundations of local legislation.
Poor language knowledge becomes “a barrier to communication outside a limited space or even a means of manipulation to advance certain goals and intentions” (Bedrina et al., 2018, pp. 43-44). It also, as a rule, negatively characterizes migrants in the eyes of the local population, drawing an invisible border between the newcomer and the resident, provoking aggression, intolerance and xenophobia. According to O. Vendina (2014), the challenge of migration is so strong for society that it begins to oppose the obvious economic benefits, and begins to demand the restriction of existing migration processes. A migrant is initially presented as a criminal element of society, which is associated with the idea of drug trafficking, crime, violence and so on.
When migrants of different ages and gender demonstrate the intention to study the language of the recipient country, it increases the level of tolerance of the recipient country population.
The Russian Federation has relatively recently become a destination country for international migrants. The collapse of the Soviet Union, ethnic conflicts, and difficult political and economic situation in the former republics of the USSR became the reasons for migration to Russia. Labor migrants are regarded as a significant cultural and linguistic resource, especially against the background of an unfavorable demographic situation in many regions of Russia. However, over the past 10-15 years, migration patterns in the Russian Federation have undergone changes: unlike the first generations of migrants fluent in Russian, new generations of migrants, especially from Central Asian countries, have weak linguistic, social and cultural ties with the Russian society. Frequently, labor migrants do not have high enough professional competencies necessary for the Russian labor market, in many cases they do not speak Russian even at the basic level, and consider the country only as a place to earn money, coming alone and leaving their families in their home country. Lack of knowledge and skills or lack of motivation to quickly adapt and integrate into Russian society is one of the main challenges for the integration policy.
Strategic objectives of the migration policy of the Russian Federation are formulated in the “Concept of State Migration Policy of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2025” (Concept of State Migration, 2012) and in the “Strategy for State National Policy of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2025” (Strategy, 2012). Adequate knowledge of the language by migrants is considered as a solid foundation for strengthening social unity and promoting the integration of Russian citizens and migrants. In this context, it is very important to study and critically interpret the experience of other countries in the field of language training of migrants. In particular, it is of some interest to study and analyse the experience of preliminary language testing of future migrants, which can be considered as a sign of serious intentions of migrants to adapt and integrate into the society of the host country.
What are the features of the language policy of recipient countries during the period of post-crisis migration?
What is the potential of preliminary language testing of migrants for their successful adaptation to the recipient society?
Purpose of the Study
Studying the cases of a number of European countries and the Russian Federation, the article will analyse some features of the post-crisis migration period in the light of the current trend towards increased migration from countries that do not have close historical, linguistic and cultural ties with the recipient country, and also consider the reasons that determine the features of language integration policies in different countries, the motivation of migrants to learn the language and existing approaches to the language integration of migrants.
At the moment, modern science is trying to develop the most systematic approach to the study of the phenomenon of migration as occurring at the micro and macro levels (Giddens, 2006). In this research the phenomenon of migration is considered from the point of view of a sociological approach, according to which migration is a result of a migrant’s choice of a specific development scenario in which mastery of the language of the recipient country plays an important role. In the course of the study, open sources that meet the objectives and contribute to the disclosure of basic concepts have been analysed. The method of comparative analysis made it possible to compare the requirements of various states for the language training of adult migrants.
One of the first scientific definitions of migration was proposed in 1885–1889 by the British scientist E. Ravenstein, who understood by it a permanent or temporary change in a person’s place of residence (Ravenstein, 1885). Nowadays, M. Galas (2017) speaks of a post-crisis migration, which is understood as:
the process of population displacement from problem regions – migration donors, caused by harm to the socio-cultural, infrastructural, religious, financial, economic, energy, political, legal, ethno-social, environmental and other favorable and traditional environments caused by political and armed conflicts, which require the protection of the rights of a citizen and a human being correlated to the problem of ensuring national security (p. 217).
It is no coincidence that the representatives of Great Britain were among the first to realize the need for a scientific analysis of migration processes. Great Britain became a recipient country at the end of the XVIII century because of the industrial revolution. During the very first migrations, new-comers managed to maintain their identity, while being in dialogue with the local population, without being assimilated. An example is the “internal migration” of the Irish. It was during this period that the first foundations of the multiculturalism policy of the British Empire were formed, namely: the priority of respect for rights and freedoms, tolerance of foreign cultures and respect for cultural and national identity, in addition, communities could defend their rights at the national level. However, the policy of multiculturalism was predetermined by another factor – the country’s colonial past. A significant number of ethnic groups and cultures coexisted in Great Britain, which also characterizes the current state of British society: the most numerous ethnic groups are represented by migrants from Pakistan, China, India, Africa, Bangladesh, and Southeast Asia. Moreover, India and Pakistan are among the top three countries whose citizens migrate to the United Kingdom (Migrants in the UK: an Overview, 2016). Despite the high level of tolerance towards migrants and the long-standing implementation of a multicultural model of migrant assimilation, the political and economic realities of the modern world have forced the UK to change its open migration policy and take a course to tighten control over migration processes.
In 2015, a migration crisis erupted throughout Europe. The number of migrants and refugees from South Asia, North Africa and the Middle East has begun to increase sharply in the European Union. Among the countries that migrants mainly choose to relocate are Germany, Britain, Italy, France, Sweden, and Austria. New waves of migrants do not have close linguistic, social and cultural ties with the receiving European society, but many of them have relatives who have long settled in Europe. One of the most significant reasons for the increase in migrant flows is the high birth rate in the Arab countries and the attractiveness of Europe for young people. Most young people seek education in Europe, where in addition to a developed educational infrastructure, the level of mutual responsibility of the state and the individual and guarantee of rights and freedoms is very high.
During the most recent immigration wave Germany became the most attractive destination for migrants. In the period between 2015 and the end of 2018, 558549 people fled to Germany and were recognized as refugees. The five most important countries of their origin are Syria (518048), Afghanistan (184759), Iraq (164163), Albania (68658), and Iran (45891). In 2016, more than 2000 recent migrants were asked what induced them to migrate and it turned out that a combination of several reasons often led to migration and flight. 70% of all respondents stated that they were fleeing war and violence, 44 % sought protection from persecution and 39 % said they were suffering from precarious personal living conditions. Furthermore, some fugitives wanted to escape discrimination (38%) or get away from forced recruitment (36%), while 32 % of all participants in the study identified the cause of their migration in the general economic situation of their country of origin. The public reception of refugees was positive in the beginning. Over time, the public attitude changed, leading to rising success in elections for the right-wing party “Alternative fuer Deutschland”. Right-wing demonstrations and violence against recent migrants rose sharply in 2015 and 2016, slightly decreasing in 2017 (Wienberg et al., 2019).
In 2014-2015 there was a sharp increase in the flow of refugees to the territory of the Russian Federation in connection with the armed conflict in the South-East of Ukraine. According to the Automated System of Analytical Reporting (hereinafter – ASAR), in 2017, more than 17.1 million foreign citizens entered the territory of the Russian Federation. The main migration flow is formed by citizens of the CIS member states (68.7%). The proportion of citizens of the European Union is 10.3%. Citizens of other countries account for 20.9% of the migrations flow. Of the number of arrived migrants, the largest share (52.4%) belongs to citizens of Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and China. Among the regions, the Moscow Region ranks first in the number of migrants. The largest number of foreign citizens is in the Central (42.1%) and North-West (14.5%) federal districts. According to ASAR, 26.4% of foreign citizens who arrived on the territory of the Russian Federation for the purpose of working or on a private visit exceeded the length of their legal stay in Russia, which indicates the presence of illegal migration (Volokh, & Gerasimova, 2019).
Let us consider the migration policy of the Russian Federation on the example of the Novgorod region of the Russian Federation. In the period of 1993-2012, Novgorod Region located in the North-West federal district of Russia was considered predominantly migration attractive with positions higher than average in the overall ranking of subjects of the Russian Federation for this indicator. Regarding other regions in the rating of attractiveness, it occupied 27th position behind Kaliningrad, Leningrad, Tver, Murmansk and Moscow regions, but it is ahead of such regions as Pskov, Vologda, Yaroslavl regions and the Republic of Karelia (Vasilenko, 2016).
At the Governor of the Novgorod region initiative, the regional project “Improving the Migration Situation in the Novgorod Region” was launched. By 2025 the region expects a migration increase and a positive impact on the problem of demography. If the priority regional project is implemented successfully, about 45000 people should move in for permanent residence in the urban agglomeration of Veliky Novgorod and the Novgorod region. The crucial role is given to Novgorod State University: it can attract young native speakers of Russian and other youngsters from abroad to get education in the region and stay there (To the year 2025 44575 people are expected to move in Novgorod agglomeration, 2019).
Migrants are mostly coming to Novgorod region from Tajikistan, Ukraine, Moldova, and Uzbekistan, which corresponds to all-Russian tendency (Some indices of migration situation in Russian Federation in the period of January-June, 2019 with subdivision into countries and regions, 2019). In 2016, 1788 migrants from former parts of Soviet Union came to Novgorod region, out of which 939 people left Ukraine, 230 were from Uzbekistan, 177 – from Tajikistan. In 2017, this tendency continued: among 1456 migrants there were 610 migrants from Ukraine, 226 – from Tajikistan, 157 – from Uzbekistan (Zimina, 2017, 2018). Unlike migrants from Ukraine who do not require any special help in mastering Russian language, migrants from Central Asia usually have problems in adaptation due to low level of Russian language proficiency. This disadvantage strongly affects both the attitude of the Russian-speaking population towards migrants and their children and the study process itself.
The number and structure of the migrant population depends on the predominant forms of migration (temporary, circular, permanent, economic, political, etc.), demographic characteristics of immigrants (age, socio-economic characteristics, educational level, etc.), cultural specifics (cultural and linguistic distance from the receiving society and the main countries of destination, level of ethnic homogeneity) and other factors. Due to this, each of the recipient countries has its own migration policy and a set of adaptation and integration schemes. For all its peculiarities, most countries consider the mastering of national language by migrants an absolute integration priority. Therefore, language training is the focus of most integration systems. Proficiency in the national language performs a number of key functions in the integration process: it provides effective communication between migrants and government agencies, economic entities and individual members of the host society. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of mastering the national language for the social integration of migrants in the host community and the social (vertical) mobility of immigrants, including intergenerational mobility. The low level of language competence, especially the low level of written language proficiency, adversely affects the results of any member of the society in the education and labor market; this is even more so for migrants and their children who face additional obstacles to successful self-realization in these systems and to the benefits of vertical mobility. Consequently, an effective language integration policy plays a key role in ensuring equal opportunities for all members of society.
Despite the undeniable advantages associated with mastering the language, the actual motivation of migrants to study the language of the host society can vary significantly. The main reason is very simple: learning a new language is a difficult and time-consuming task. The level of complexity increases many times if there is no linguistic proximity of the mother tongue of the migrant and the language of the recipient society, if there are significant differences in the alphabet and writing system (Arabic script, hieroglyphics vs. the Latin or Cyrillic alphabet). Each migrant assesses the need to master a foreign language, i.e. the national language of the host society, in terms of the benefits of this “long-term investment”, the value of which for a person is assessed depending on the benefits for individual migration plans and prospects, such as the expected length of stay in the country, the status of the language (of world, regional significance or only national use).
In addition, the motivation to learn the language of the recipient country is affected by the need to know it for the successful functioning of the labor market. For many types of low-skilled or manual labor, this is not always necessary, especially if the work does not imply leaving the migrant community of the same origin. However, close ties with the migrant community limit the overall chances of migrants to successfully operate outside these structures or niches and do not always meet the interests of the receiving country, as they reduce the economic potential of migrants and limit their participation in the education of their children. In addition, the lack of desire to learn a language is critically assessed by the prevailing society, creating the basis for xenophobia.
Due to the different composition of the migrant population in different states, the language integration policy is different. In countries traditionally attractive to migrants, much attention is paid to mastering the language by migrant youth or the “second generation” of migrants, as these countries have realized that the lack of language competence of these groups negatively affects their educational achievements and hinders intergenerational mobility. Countries with a more recent history of migration, to which Russia can be attributed, give preference to new comers of working age. Therefore, the main attention is paid to the organization of evening language courses, specific professional language training or language requirements and testing in countries of origin, before moving to the recipient country.
In the field of language education, integration policy tends to distinguish between adult migrants and the younger generation. For the first group, the above-mentioned special integration programs and language courses are intended, while mastering the language of the second group should be carried out within the framework of general educational systems. The mastery of the language by children of migrants is a part of a broader discussion regarding educational policy in the era of post-crisis migration, when the growing presence of students with a migration past is recognized, which implies the need for more complex and more effective measures in response to the current situation. Proficiency in the teaching language is recognized as an indispensable condition for the overall success of the student in educational systems.
Considering the migration policy in regards to the recipient country language proficiency of adult migrants, several approaches can be distinguished. For example, attending language and integration courses after their arrival is a prerequisite for the migrants in France. Studying in courses, applicants demonstrate at least a desire for integration. In the UK, ethnic communities are taking advantage of the opportunity to study English twice a week for ten months as part of the “English Language and Mentoring” program. Various master classes, cinema clubs help in speaking practice and language development, as well as establishing friendly contacts with the local population. Since 2013, the program has been funded by the Evan Cornish Foundation (English Language and Mentoring, 2020). Another program “Active Citizenship and English” from 2013 to 2015 supported women who migrated from countries outside the EU to the UK, the goal of the program was to prepare women for testing for UK citizenship (Active Citizenship and English Language, 2020). At present, the most comprehensive and essential assistance to migrants in learning the language of the recipient country in the UK is provided by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), a leading intergovernmental organization in the field of migration, which works closely with governmental, intergovernmental and non-governmental partners and has 173 member states. For refugees accepted for resettlement in the United Kingdom, IOM provides English Language Courses (UK CO-ELT) (UK Cultural Orientation and English Language Training (CO-ELT), 2020).
However, since UK follows a course to tighten control over migration processes, there has been a cutback in funding for free English courses. At present 770000 people in England speak the language poorly or not at all, though critics have said language learning has suffered because of government cuts. At the same time ethnic minorities in the UK display the tendency to ignore the teaching of language and citizenship to migrant children. As A. Lone notices (2018),
we need to support this minority to fully integrate while at the same time, robustly tackling institutions that are not teaching younger generations the basics of being a citizen. We currently have ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools where children are not taught English but Yiddish and unregulated Islamic schools that do not teach comprehensive gender equality. When it comes to integration, religious schools or institutions should not get a “get out of jail free card” (p. 1).
In the Russian Federation, testing for knowledge of the Russian language (integration exam in the Russian language, history and the basics of legislation, the state exam in the Russian language) is carried out for foreign citizens who have already arrived in the country, who are applying for a patent or work permit, a temporary residence permit, a visa residence, citizenship of the Russian Federation. For such persons, courses of Russian as a foreign language are organized. New enough for the Russian migration policy is the concept of “native speaker of the Russian language”. Created in order to facilitate the acquisition of Russian citizenship by Russian-speaking citizens, this preferential program has analogues in Poland, Germany, Israel, Estonia, and Kazakhstan. Federal Law of April 20, 2014 No 71-FZ “On Amending the Federal Law “On Citizenship of the Russian Federation ”and Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation” and the Federal Law of August 2, 2019 No. 257-FZ “On Amending The Federal Law “On the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the Russian Federation” Regarding the Simplification of the Procedure for Granting Temporary Residence Permits and Residence Permits to Certain Categories of Foreign Citizens and Persons without Citizenship” simplified the process of receiving Russian citizenship for persons recognized as native speakers of Russian.
Native speakers of the Russian language are those who speak the Russian language and use it on a daily basis in the family, household and cultural spheres, if these persons or their relatives live in a direct ascending line or previously lived in the Russian Federation or in the territory belonging to the Russian Federation Empire or the USSR, within the state border of the Russian Federation. In addition to knowledge of the Russian language, it is necessary to comply with the living conditions in the designated areas either by a person or relatives in a straight line. In accordance with the first part of Article 33.1 of the Federal Law “On Native Speakers of the Russian Language”, recognition of the native speakers of the Russian language is carried out in the form of the interview by specially created committees functioning under each territorial authority of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. Citizens of Belarus and Ukraine can be recognized as native speakers of the Russian language without being interviewed.
Mandatory pre-entry testing for knowledge of Russian is not carried out, although in the European context, language testing before admission to the country has been used for more than a decade. The first country in the European Union to introduce mandatory pre-entry language testing for migrants in 2006 was the Netherlands. Testing takes place in special centers organized by the embassies of the Netherlands abroad. After the introduction of the Dutch model, it was criticized quite significantly due to the high cost of tests, the limited validity of language certificates, and the availability of tests only in Dutch and English. Despite criticism, the Netherlands retained the testing system, and other countries followed the example. Passing a preliminary language proficiency test is a strict condition for granting a long-term residence permit in Austria, Denmark, Germany, and Great Britain. The latter, when being part of the EU, ranked second after Germany in the number of migrants. In 2008, the UK introduced a system of points that were awarded to migrants depending on the level of education, income and knowledge of English. Based on the total points, the Committee on Migration Problems made a decision on permission to migrate.
Preliminary language tests conducted by different countries differ in many aspects: in some countries, testing is organized by the authorities of the future recipient country or hired service providers under their supervision, in others, language skills can be confirmed by recognized language certificates; in most cases, language testing is conducted in the country of origin, but in exceptional cases it is conducted shortly after arrival in the host country; tests differ in structure and tested skills (writing, reading, listening, speaking), content (language, information about culture and society), as well as the required level of language knowledge; the cost of testing and preparatory courses is paid by migrants, but in some cases it may be subsidized (ERIS, 2015). EU Member States that have introduced pre-entry language testing justify this measure by the need to expand the integration potential of migrants in such a key area as language skills; increase their readiness and determination to integrate; familiarize migrants in advance with the cultural and social norms of the host society (if language testing is accompanied by testing for “civic integration”); prevent fictitious marriages; and also reduce the necessary public investment in integration after arrival (if family members live off social benefits). The introduction of language testing for family members is also a signal to the general public of the recipient country that the authorities are paying due attention to the potential of migrants for successful integration.
Critics of preliminary language tests argue that testing poses additional barriers to migration, especially for vulnerable groups that are thus not allowed to migrate and reunite with their relatives. In particular, it is suggested that exemption from pre-testing of citizens of most economically developed countries creates prerequisites for discrimination against citizens of other states. Knowledge of the language should appear as a result of integration, and not be its prerequisite.
As noted by the researchers, due to the relatively short time elapsed since the introduction of preliminary testing, it is not yet possible to properly evaluate the effectiveness of tests and their actual impact on the integration trajectory of migrants. However, there are first observations of the short-term effect of testing in some European countries: in most of them, the total number of applicants for a residence permit has decreased after the introduction of the tests. This can be partially explained by the fact that applicants postpone the submission of their applications, wanting to better prepare for the tests. The introduction of a preliminary testing system has also led to some changes in the composition of applicants: among them there are fewer poorly educated, elderly or illiterate people, especially in countries with a relatively high cost of testing. Practice shows that well-designed test preparation schemes and properly organized tests can actually enhance the desired effect of empowering migrants and make testing an incentive for proper training, rather than a serious obstacle for potential migrants (ERIS, 2015).
In the countries of applicants’ origin it is necessary to organize preparatory language courses that meet the nature of testing, and / or organize classes in e-learning format. Instructions for preparation and testing, educational and preparatory materials should be available in a language understood by potential migrants. The cost of testing, including the cost of preparatory courses, materials and retests, should be reasonable and affordable, while consideration should be given to the allocation of subsidies for certain groups of migrants.
Teaching migrants of different ages and gender at different educational levels to the language of the recipient country increases the efficiency of adaptation and integration of migrants, and also increases the level of tolerance of the main population of the country. Although Russian authorities have noted a decrease in Russian language proficiency among the newly arrived contingent of migrants from non-Slavic countries of the CIS, the traditional role of Russian culture and the Russian language continues to be an important factor in the region and a distinctive form of social capital brought to Russia by a significant number of new arrivals. The growing interest in courses on Russian culture and the Russian language observed in Central Asian countries confirms this assumption.
The experience of organizing preliminary testing of future migrants in the world community should be of great interest to Russian migration policy. Pre-entry language tests should be considered as a starting point for the language integration of migrants, and during their life in the country the ongoing language support should be offered to them. When developing tests, it is necessary to take into account the specific needs of vulnerable groups of future migrants.
- Active Citizenship and English Language. (2020, March 30). https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/intpract/active-citizenship-and-english-ace-for-third-country-national-women-in-the-uk
- Bedrina, E. B., Beketova, A. P., Vandyshev, M. N., Melnikova, A. S., Kuprina, T. V., Neklyudova, N. P., & Chepel, S. V. (2018). Mezhdunarodnaya trudovaya migratsiya v sovremennoy Rossii: ot monitoringa k prinyatiyu upravlencheskikh resheniy [International labor migration in modern Russia: from monitoring to managerial decision-making]. Yekaterinburg: Institute of Economics, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
- Berry, J. W. (2002). Akkul'turatsiya i psikhologicheskaya adaptatsiya: obzor problem [Acculturation and Psychological Adaptation: A Review of the Problem]. Razvitiye lichnosti [Personality Development], 1. http://rl-online.ru/articles/3_4-01/198.html
- Concept of State Migration. (2012). Kontseptsiya gosudarstvennoy migratsionnoy politiki Rossiyskoy Federatsii na period do 2025 goda [The concept of state migration policy of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2025]. https://legalacts.ru/doc/kontseptsija-gosudarstvennoi-migratsionnoi-politiki-rossiiskoi-federatsii-na/
- English Language and Mentoring. (2020, March 30). https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/intpract/english-language-and-mentoring
- ERIS. (2015). Sovmestnoye rukovodstvo po printsipam, protseduram i standartam politiki integratsii inostrantsev [Joint Guide on Principles, Procedures and Standards of Foreigners Integration Policies]. https://www.pragueprocess.eu/phocadownload/ERIS_manual_ru%20FINAL.PDF
- Galas, M. L. (2017). Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskiye i politiko-pravovyye aspekty postkrizisnoy migratsii [Socio-economic and political and legal aspects of post-crisis migration]. Finansy: Teoriya i Praktika [Finance: Theory and Practice], 3. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sotsialno-ekonomicheskie-i-politiko-pravovye-aspekty-postkrizisnoy-migratsii
- Giddens, A. (2006). Sotsiologiya [Sociology]. https://socioline.ru/pages/entoni-giddens-sotsiologiya
- International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. (1990). http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/migrant.shtml
- Lone, A. (2018). People in the UK should learn English. But without free classes, they can’t. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/14/uk-learn-english-free-classes-government-funding
- Migrants in the UK: an Overview. (2016). http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Briefing-Migrants_UK_Labour_Market.pdf
- New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants. (2016). https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/declaration
- Ravenstein, E. G. (1885). The Laws of Migration. Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 48, 2, 167-235. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2979181.pdf?seq=1
- Some indices of migration situation in Russian Federation in the period of January-June, 2019 with subdivision into countries and regions. (2019, July 30). https://xn--b1aew.xn--1ai/Deljatelnost/statistics/migracionnaya/item/17595161
- Strategy. (2012). Strategiya gosudarstvennoy natsional’noy politiki Rossiyskoy Federatsii na period do 2025 g. [Strategy the state national policy of the Russian Federation for the period until 2025]. http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_139350/ff30f91360f2917b325d507685fd90353895d2bd/
- To the year 2025 44575 people are expected to move in Novgorod agglomeration. (2019, July 30). https://53news.ru/novosti/46579-k-2025-godu-v-novgorodskuyu-aglomeratsiyu-dolzhny-pereselitsya-44575-chelovek.htm
- UK Cultural Orientation and English Language Training (CO-ELT). (2020). Giving refugees a head start on life in the UK. https://www.iom.int/uk-cultural-orientation-and-english-language-training-co-elt-giving-refugees-head-start-life-uk
- Vasilenko, P. V. (2016). Dinamika migratsionnoi provlekatel’nosti Novgorodskoi oblasti [Dynamics of migration attractiveness of Novgorod Region]. Vestnik Pskovskogo gosudartsvennogo universiteta [Herald of Pskov State University], 8, 36-44.
- Vendina, O. (2014). Sotsial’naya rol’ migratsii [The social role of migration] [Video file]. http://postnauka.ru/video/24270
- Volokh, V. A., & Gerasimova, I. V. (2019). Upravleniye migratsionnymi protsessami v Rossiyskoy Federatsii: analiz i perspektivy [Management of migration processes in the Russian Federation: analysis and prospects]. Upravleniye [Management], 1. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/upravlenie-migratsionnymi-protsessami-v-rossiyskoy-federatsii-analiz-i-perspektivy
- Wienberg, J., Dutz, G., & Grotlüschen, A. (2019). Language Learning of Migrants: Empirical evidence from the German integration course system. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329626114_Language_Learning_of_Migrants_Empirical_Evidence_from_the_German_integration_course_system_accepted
- Zimina, N. E. (Ed.) (2017). Novgorodskaya oblast v tsifrah [Novgorod Region in Numbers]. Veliky Novgorodstat.
- Zimina, N. E. (Ed.) (2018). Novgorodskaya oblast v tsifrah [Novgorod Region in Numbers]. Novgorodstat.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
27 May 2021
Print ISBN (optional)
Culture, communication, history, mediasphere, education, law
Cite this article as:
Shubina, D., & Shaydorova, N. (2021). Language Training Of Migrants As A State Migration Policy Tool. In E. V. Toropova, E. F. Zhukova, S. A. Malenko, T. L. Kaminskaya, N. V. Salonikov, V. I. Makarov, A. V. Batulina, M. V. Zvyaglova, O. A. Fikhtner, & A. M. Grinev (Eds.), Man, Society, Communication, vol 108. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 1606-1617). European Publisher. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.05.02.203