Brazilians in Europe: Three Successful Stories in the Light of French Discourse Analysis

ABSTRACT

Considering that migrations are not made of suffering and exclusion alone, we intend, in this paper, to analyze and compare, in the light of French Discourse Analysis, three life stories of Brazilian migrants to Europe to understand, by means of their discourse, how they achieved success abroad. The results, in general, point to three common aspects: courage to take risks, determination to overcome the challenges and the willingness to integrate fully into the new country.

KEYWORDS:
Brazilian migrants; European context; Life stories; Success

RESUMO

Considerando que as migrações não são feitas apenas de sofrimento e exclusão, pretendemos, neste trabalho, analisar e comparar, à luz da Análise do Discurso de linha francesa, três narrativas de vida de migrantes brasileiros na Europa, para buscar compreender, por meio de seus discursos, como eles obtiveram sucesso do outro lado do Atlântico. Os resultados, em linhas gerais, apontam para três aspectos comuns: a coragem de “arriscar”, a determinação de vencer os desafios e a disposição de integrar-se plenamente ao novo país.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE:
Migrantes brasileiros; Contexto europeu; Narrativas de vida; Sucesso

Introduction: The Migratory Context

Migration is not a contemporary phenomenon. As matter of fact, it is part of the development of territories, societies and cultures of various countries. Nevertheless, only by the end of the 20^th century and beginning of the 21^st century, the circulation of peoples intensified and diversified in the world, particularly in Europe, which has been facing, since 2005, one of the most intense migratory wave in the contemporary history (BLANCHARD et al., 2016). This movement has led politicians and the media as well as researchers like Clochard (2007) to devise the notion of a “crisis migration” derived from a series of wars and economic, social, political and ethnic tensions that have shaken the planet.

Blanchard et al. (2016, p.44) defines migrant¹ as the individual who has left their country of origin, willingly or not, to become a foreigner in the country of destination. The word migrant can broadly cover a variety of realities that influence the living conditions of people in the new country, as well as their rights and statutes. This way, the term embraces refugees, asylum seekers, undocumented, clandestine etc.

On the other hand, there are researchers who would oppose migrants to refugees. Calabrese (2018, p.153), for instance, claims that the term refugee is part of a legal jargon and, as such, it constitutes a social category that grants access to protection, whereas migrant is deprived of judicial definition. From a legal perspective, a refugee is any person who moves from a country to escape armed conflicts, persecutions (political, ethnical, religious etc.) or human rights violations (Geneva Convention, 1951), whereas migrant is any person who moves voluntarily even in the attempt to escape poverty or to find better living conditions. Therefore, there are two types of migration: forced and voluntary (BARTRAM et al., 2014).

Given these definitions, by preserving the dichotomy migrant vs. refugee, even if it is not entirely functional in practice (CLOCHARD, 2007; BARTRAM et al. 2014), we verify that the current Brazilian migratory flux is not rooted in political persecutions or civil conflicts, rather, it is voluntary – which does not imply an easy decision if we consider the losses and breaks entailed in the move to a different country, in addition to the inevitable adaptation to new languages, cultures, codes, social norms etc.

According to the researchers who investigate Brazilian migration in Europe, the main reasons to move are: 1) economic migration (after better salaries, for example); 2) personal migration (after a professional or academic career); 3) affective migration (marriage or family reunion) (MARQUES; GÓIS, 2015; MOREIRA, 2018). These reasons can overlap in some aspects and a primary reason can transform into another in the course of the migrant’s history.

Updated and truthful data on the presence of Brazilian individuals abroad are hard to find. Moreira (2018, p.23) states that according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), there are 1 to 3 million Brazilian migrants in the world. Data from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics [IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística] show that, in 2010, there were 491.243 Brazilians spread across the 193 countries in the world, mostly the United States (23,8%), Portugal (13,4%), Spain (9,4%), Japan (7,4%), Italy (7,0%) and England (6,2%). Although France is not reported in the primary list, there were 17.700 Brazilians living in this country in 2010 (3,6% of the Brazilian population abroad). Data from the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies [INSEE - Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques], however, reported 43.383 Brazilians in French territory in 2013.

Based on these preliminary considerations, this paper² aims to analyze discourses of Brazilian who have migrated to Europe, particularly to Portugal, France and England. These countries were chosen due to their linguistic and cultural differences as well as their migratory policies. Similar to previous works we developed (LARA, 2018; 2019; 2021), it is our goal to provide these subjects with the opportunity to tell their own histories, to turn their life experiences into discourses, thus expanding their speech spaces to beyond the private sphere.

Minority individuals, called either “voiceless” (MAINGUENEAU, 2020)³ or “speechless” (DUCARD, 2015),⁴ are usually unheard in the “high sphere.” Reflecting on the feeling of compassion toward the other (an outcast), Maingueneau (2020) mentions the perception of “inaudibility” that many such individuals share and which we apply to migrants. He states:

The common representation in terms of circulation of utterances imply a difference between a sphere, that can be called “high” and a “low” sphere. A great number of people actually experience the feeling of “being unheard” […] Their speech seems to them twice as low: coming from below, from unimportant people, it is not heard, it’s as if they were “speaking low.” It is paramount, then, the need of the mediator to make their voices heard, to make their speech ascend to the high sphere (MAINGUENEAU, 2020, p.3).⁵

Assuming, then, the role of mediator⁶ for discourses that wish to make themselves heard in the “high sphere” and to conquer public space, we present and analyze the life stories – collected through interviews – of Brazilian who have chosen to live in Europe. Because human mobility does not consist exclusively of suffering and exclusion, we have selected for the present article three reports from Brazilians that have achieved success across the Atlantic.

In the light of French Discourse Analysis (FDA) we aim to learn through the various linguistic-discursive strategies mobilized in the construction of these marginal voices, how these individuals – common people like us – achieved personal and professional success abroad, when many either give up or fail. We will then try to provide answers for the following questions: 1) how these successful Brazilian migrants (re)present themselves in their life stories? 2) how do they evaluate their current situation (in a new country) compared to their previous situation (in Brazil), their relationships to the natives and the (im)possibility of return? 3) what images and (social-discursive)⁷ representations – of themselves, of others and of the world – do they allow us to see, after all, in their life stories?

It is noteworthy that migrants can contribute to the new society in which they live, thus demystifying certain stereotypes that come about especially in times of economic and/or political crises in regards to the elevated social cost of migrants and to the negative impact of their presence on the country of arrival, such as unemployment and criminality. In these cases, migrants are often considered “trespassers” or “scapegoats” (LE BRAS, 2014). By contrast, they can be seen positively as productive and well-integrated to the community (despite the obstacles and difficulties they might have faced in the beginning).

As Peixoto (2013, p.170) declares in regards to Portugal, all available studies confirm that migrants were responsible for a great part of the country’s development in the past two decades, complementing – not competing with – Portuguese workers, in other words, they did jobs with shortage of demand by Portuguese workers. This situation can also be extended to France and England (LAACHER, 2012; PORTES, 2019). Although migrants mostly work in the most precarious and vulnerable sectors and are more susceptible to unemployment, there are those who turn to entrepreneurship, even coming to employ native labor. This is the case of two interviewees (Manuel and Pedro) as seen in section 2.

1

Theoretical-Methodological Issues

The interviewees whose reports are analyzed in section 2 are: James (France), Manuel (England) and Pedro (Portugal). They were selected from a larger data-set of 30 reports that constitute our research corpus (see footnote 1). The interviews were recorded and later on transcribed;⁸ they took place on day, time and place that suited the interviewees’ availability and lasted between 15 to 20 minutes. According to the Ethics Research Committee [CEP - Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa] at UFMG, all participants signed an Informed Consent Form to allow us the use of data from their recordings in events and publications by preserving their anonymity.

The procedures described by Bertaux (2005) in the field of ethnosociology for narrative interviews were followed after adaptations to the framework of French Discourse Analysis (FDA) – our theoretical basis. This type of interview follows a script: a general question is followed by more specific ones to contemplate the topics posed by the researcher in regards to her object of investigation. The proposition of a script helps the interviewer to interfere minimally with the narrative, so it can flow naturally, at the same time it prevents the interviewee from digressing.

Presently, the general proposition Tell me how you used to live in Brazil and how you live now in this country, articulated to the questions posed in the Introduction of this paper, unfolded into five specific questions: 1) what reasons did you have to migrate to Europe and, particularly, to the chosen country?; 2) in your opinion, what were/are the positive and the negative aspects of moving there?; 3) how do you evaluate the native’s perception of migrants, especially the Brazilian migrant?; 4) what is your contact with Brazilian and natives in this new country like?; 5) do you have any plans of going back to Brazil? The interviewees could answer the questions in the order and manner they wished, they could even choose not to discuss a particular subject (their silence would be respected) and they could even include aspects that they deemed relevant and were not planned in the script.

Before moving onto the analysis, it is important to focus on the key concept in our investigation, life story, (récit de vie), which was introduced by the sociologist D. Bertaux, in 1976. Bertaux claims that a life story is set when a subject tells someone, a researcher or not, any episode of their experiences in life. The verb “to tell” (give an account of) plays an essential role here: it means that the discursive production of the subject has taken the form of a narrative (BERTAUX, 2005, p.36).

If the interviews are conducted by researchers, the life stories will allow them to analyze and compare a series of cases that implicate multiple perceptions of a single reality to learn its similarities and differences. The social dimension (a comparative approach) is prioritized, then, to investigate how a group of people in a social situation deal with it (BERTAUX, 2005, p.21). In the present case, for example, we focus on how the Brazilian interviewees deal with migration to Europe and how they explain their success in a foreign country.

In the scope of FDA, a life story must be conceived as a subject’s account of (a part of) their life and their relations to the surrounding world, so there is an I who speaks/writes in the here and now of the enunciation, (re)creating from the events they have lived this other from there and then, providing through language a better outline for their life experiences (MACHADO, 2016; MACHADO and LESSA, 2013). We agree with Moreira (2018, p.140) that this is not a mere discursive report that takes a narrative form, rather, it is an exercise of revealing oneself to the other. This means that the subject of the account reaches for memories and recollections, predicting, nonetheless, the possibility of ever-present porosities and gaps. This results in the production of a complex and heterogeneous story.

Inspired by Machado (2016, p.13), we argue that these “small stories” thread the “great history” of contemporary migration, set in the tension between living and reliving through memory, between the objectivity and the subjectivity of telling (oneself). Assuming that each migrant’s speech is unique and their experience is singular, we cannot fail to recognize the collective vocation of these speeches that, beyond individual differences, manifest ideas that would answer for a shared discourse.

The life stories reported by James, Manuel and Pedro, as we said, will be analyzed in the light of FDA. Given its interdisciplinary nature, ADF allows a productive dialogue with social sciences, a domain described by Maingueneau (2020) as particularly active for investigations on the opposition between dominating groups and those who are classified, depending on the perspective, as “outcast,” “invisible,” “minorities.”⁹ The very concept of life story comes from this “dialogue.”

In the scope of FDA, our “individual analytical device” (ORLANDI, 1999)¹⁰ will be devised according to the planes proposed by Maingueneau (2005, pp.79-102) in the realm of his “global semantics,” conceived as the system of restrictions that acts on the several planes of discourse, in an integrated way, at the level of the utterance as well as the enunciation. These planes are the themes (imposed and specific), the vocabulary (key-words, nominalization, evaluation index), the manner of enunciation (which points to the construction of the speaker’s ethos) and the enunciative deixis (categories of person, time and space).¹¹ These planes will be articulated to marks of shown heterogeneity or to enunciative heterogeneity (AUTHIER-REVUZ, 1990a; 1990b), which are notions that derive from the Bakhtinian dialogism:

The “dialogism” of the Bakhtin circle […] does not feature, as a nucleus, the conversational face-to-face of the dialogue, but constitutes, through multiform reflections, semiotic as well as literary, a theory of internal dialogization of the discourse. The words are always, inevitably, “the words of others” (italics by the author).¹²

It is important to remember that enunciative heterogeneity is divided into two distinct but complementary orders of reality: constitutive and shown heterogeneity. Contrary to constitutive heterogeneity, which is “non localizable and non-representable in a discourse that it constitutes,” (AUTHIER-REVUZ, 1990a, p.32),¹³ shown heterogeneity “corresponds to the localizable presence of another discourse in the thread of discourse” that can be marked (by unequivocal linguistic or typographic indexes: reported speech, negation, presupposition, etc.) or unmarked (irony, allusions, pastiche and others) (MAINGUENEAU, 2004, p.261).¹⁴ Hence, Bakhtin’s and the Circle’s contributions are employed – through enunciative heterogeneity (mostly, shown/marked) – to unravel the “voices” that cross the “voice” of the subject who tells (themselves) as well as the effects of meaning from this very plurality of “voices” that create controversy, complement, respond to one another in the construction of life stories.

A parenthesis must be open in regard to how we conceive the “narrator” of the texts to be analyzed. Since we have chosen global semantics and the contributions of enunciative heterogeneity to build our analytical device, some readers may find that this will guide us to the “subjected subject” of the early FDA. According to Orlandi (2001, p.189) “there is not a single subject who owns themselves absolutely, nor a subject who is entirely dominated by what comes from the outside.”¹⁵ In other words, the subject in the current FDA, the one assumed in this article, lives in the “tension” between the same and the different. In addition, Possenti (2005), in his introduction to the Brazilian translation of Genèses du discours, from where the hypothesis of a global semantics was taken, highlights that this work proposes a method for discourse analysis that, without disregard for the historical aspects underscored by Pêcheux and his group, “added certain aspects that affect discursivity beyond the direct relation between language and history.”

The arguments by Orlandi (2001) and Possenti (2005) authorize us to admit that, if the life stories of “our” migrants reveal recurrent aspects that refer to a “common discourse,” they are susceptible to a “horizontal” analysis (the issue of interest for this article). Since their stories can also present differences that relate to their different experiences (and the singularity with which they are approached in each narrative), they are also susceptible to a “vertical” analysis that shall be conducted elsewhere.

Before ending the present discussion, we deem important to mention that all three interviewees are legal migrants: James lives in Paris-France with a work visa; Manuel lives near London-England with a residency permit; Pedro lives in Lisbon-Portugal with double citizenship.Additional information on the interviewees are displayed in Chart 1.

Chart 1:
Information on the research subjects.

*Minimum of 6 (six) months.

2

Life Narratives under the Spotlight: Histories of Success and Their Interrelations

First, we must clarify what we conceive as success in the claim that James, Manuel and Pedro, in their own ways, can be seen as successful migrants. The dictionary informs us that success means, among other things, “achievement, desired results” (Dicionário Aurélio, 1986, p.1624); and “good results, achievement, triumph” (Dicionário Houaiss, 2009, p.1784). It is best, however, to read James’ own evaluation of his trajectory to a clearer understanding of success:

My achievements, first nowadays, for myself, means improving as a person […] Second, it is working today in my own field in the biggest cosmetic store in the world […] Imagine a 22-year-old boy, from a town so small that the first cell phone tower was installed in 2011. Just so you have an idea, it takes 4 days on a boat from my city to Manaus. It’s another world. So, coming this far today, being here and living here, because it’s not just a month in my life: I’m taking almost a year of my life here, you know? Learning new things. So, for me this is a great achievement.

The excerpt shows that the boy from a small town in the depths of Amazonas, who moved alone to São Paulo at the age of 18 and then to Paris, where he is currently working as he stated himself “in the biggest cosmetic store in the world” is a successful migrant. Given James’ points of departure and arrival, the “good results” and “achievements” cannot be missed – indeed, he recognizes it himself. Even if the paths were different – considering the circumstances of each particular case¹⁶ – this evolution from one point to another is repeated for both Manuel and Pedro, thus making them successful migrants.

Turning to the reasons that took James and the other narrators to Europe, which points to the first (imposed) theme, henceforth IT1. Maingueneau (2005, p.88) claims that themes are semantically integrated to a given discourse by the system of restrictions that rules it; they can be divided into imposed themes, that are necessary for the acceptance of a discourse, and specific themes, which are inherent to a particular discourse. Hence, a discourse that intends to report someone’s migratory experience cannot avoid the reasons that led them to leave their country of origin nor the evaluation of their own migratory process (in their positive and negative aspects).

Therefore, the questions in our script work as imposed themes from which specific themes are given shape in the course of the reports, however, we do not think it possible to approach these themes (imposed or specific) without the parallel analysis of vocabulary. According to Maingueneau (2005, pp.83-84),¹⁷ “the word in itself does not constitute a pertinent unit of analysis,” however, it is how words are used that show how they behave (create controversy, complement, dialogue with one another) in the whole of discourses.

Regarding IT1 (motivation to migrate), James told us of his dream to visit Norway. Working in São Paulo, he managed to save money for the trip.He went there and he reveals that upon his return: “My head, my world opened up, you know? And then I said ‘God, I want to go back’ […] ‘Europe, I’m coming back’.” In this excerpt, a specific theme rises that, as we shall see, is present in James’s narrative and the other’s as well: determination, that is observed in how his wish (“I want to go back”) is modalized as a certainty (“Europe, I’m coming back”).

Motivated by this “hunger for Europe” (personal motivation), the boy from Amazonas started to research how he could legally enter the continent. According to his own report, France was not his first choice. Influenced by a friend who wanted to move there, however, he tried a student visa, but the cost made him quit. James managed to get a vacance travail, a specific visa that allows people from 18 to 31 years of age to live for a year in France. He quit the job in São Paulo, collected his savings and, with the visa, moved to France “on a shoestring.” He first lived in Rouen, where he worked in a bistro, then in Paris, where he became a cosmetic consultant for one of the biggest cosmetic stores in the city. That is where we found him.

Manuel, in turn, confesses that “life in Brazil was too difficult” and he got involved with piracy. His worrying mother, who was already working in London, decided to bring him over there (migration to reunite the family). Manuel attended an English school for two months, then he started working as kitchen’s assistant in a restaurant. There, he met his wife. They went to live together in a different city, but he continued to work in London, this time, as a waiter. In his first jobs, he worked with Brazilians, but eventually Manuel preferred to work with the English. As he claims: “I have nothing against Brazilians, of course, but if I’m here, what I have to do is […] almost infiltrate in their way of life, right? You need to immerse yourself in how they live here to learn, you know?”.

As indicated by the verbs infiltrate and immerse (the British way of life), integrating a new society (specific theme) is essential for learning (and we add, for success). Bartram et al. (2014, p.83) define integration as “The process by which immigrants gain social membership and develop the ability to participate in key institutions in the destination country.” As shown in chart 1, Manuel is a businessman and his company of renewable energy and heating pumps also employs English workers.

Finally, what made Pedro go to Portugal was the lack of opportunities in Brazil (economic motivation). Originally from a numerous family from Minas Gerais without many resources, he moved to the capital at the age of 13, where he attended a boarding school for two years. His mother followed him with his younger siblings. He explains:

In Brazil, our lives were always very hard, right? There was always a lot of work […] Work every day, work every day, waiting for the opportunity on the weekend, that is the time to decompress, right, a little from work and to wait for Monday to go back to work again. Actually, there wasn’t much room for anything else, right?¹⁸

It is important to note the repetition of the word work in this excerpt, intensified by the expression every day and the presupposition marker again, thus indicating a hard life in Brazil focused basically on surviving, which limits the time and the opportunity to do anything else, to “take risks.” In Portugal, life was not easy at first for Pedro. He claims that “When I arrived here, I worked in hotels, restaurants, and every day, I was up at six thirty; and I earned something like 5 euros an hour. So, these first few years I’ve been through Europe were very hard.” Indeed, data raised by Egreja and Peixoto (2015, p.76) show that “almost a fourth of the Brazilians who migrate to Portugal are susceptible to very precarious working conditions,” in moderately or less qualified jobs, earning little and working long weekly shifts.

At the same time, Pedro had the chance to work with (Brazilian) culture. He started teaching dance lessons and promoting nights of forró once a week until, as he says: “I saw that forró, the cultural part was luring me in and […] almost two years after coming to Portugal, I began to dedicate myself to music and dancing, to promote culture.” He has been living off culture for nine years. He owns a place to teach and to promote Brazilian music and dance and he arranges great festivals that attract people from different parts of the globe, not just Europe. In short, as Pedro himself insists in saying “Look, in the end we created our own market, it didn’t exist,” that is, he bet on the novelty. The fact that he and other Brazilian migrants move to Portugal is justified by Pedro in the “proximity” (especially the common language), the low cost of living (comparing Portugal to other European countries), as well as the difficulties Brazil is going through – these, in his opinion, encourage “people from all sectors of culture” to move to Europe.

A specific theme approached by Manuel and, overall, by Pedro (but silenced by James) comprehends the difficulties and the lack of opportunities that characterize the life of (future) migrants still living in Brazil. As shown above, the words difficult/hard appear in both their accounts becoming a type of keyword – a point of semantic crystallization according to Maingueneau (2005) – in their past lives in the home country.

On the other hand, since the trajectory of migrants can be divided into three basic moments – departure, arrival (and adaptation) to the new country and the (possible) return to the home country –, the index of evaluation difficulty is also applied to the initial moments that migrants experience in the country of arrival. All three interviewees did less qualified jobs in arriving in Europe, which points to the specific theme of exploitation of foreign labor, even though Pedro is the only one who mentions it directly when he reports earning five euros an hour for very hard work.

In addition, James and Manuel also had to learn a new language: French and English, respectively. In this regard, the specific themes of integration and the determination to overcome obstacles come together – and maybe this is one of the reasons that explain their success. Manuel narrates how he learned English:

Ah, the language, English, speaking English was the hardest to learn […] in my free time, I’d take the newspaper, the free paper in the subway found anywhere in London, right, I’d take it home and copy the paper. I had no idea what it meant, how to speak it, but I copied. Then, after a while, when things started making a bit more sense, I communicated faster, you know, because […] I had seen that word, I knew how to spell it.

Manuel’s tenacity, copying things he did not yet understand, is comparable to James’ disposition and determination to learn French as well as to work in his own field (the cosmetic business). The young Brazilian admits that his greatest difficulty – added to his initial financial problems – was learning to express himself in a foreign language. He spent quite some time repeating things, phrases he learned in the restaurant he worked at in Rouen. He states: “For example, ‘Est-ce que vous voulez commencer par un apéritif? Ou le menu avec la carte des vins?’¹⁹[...] this was something I trained for days.” It was most encouraging how he handled his first job rejection by a cosmetic store in Rouen (a branch of the same company he came to work for in Paris):

Then I got rejected [...] but I didn’t give up.I ended up drawing, on the same day they rejected me, like this: Bienvenue chez X [name of the store] and I made some flags, I made my contract signature and placed it in front of me (laughter). Every single day, I’d look at it. Every single day I’d look. Then, my friend, I have a friend who had the same visa I did, she sent me an offer on WhatsApp. […] It was for Paris, not for Rouen.

Moving to the second imposed theme (IT2): the positive and negative aspects of migration, it inevitably leads us to compare Brazil and the new country with highlights to the evaluation indexes on the vocabulary plane. Some of these aspects were contemplated in IT1. This shows that the themes outlined in the script are not “closed” in themselves, but they “dialogue” with one another throughout the reports.

James argues that the greatest advantage of moving to France was the quality of life. Although Brazil is positively characterized as a “great potency,” it lacks (infra)structure and good education such as in France and, in general, Europe. The greatest disadvantage, he reports, is that the simple fact of being a migrant implies facing many obstacles. The word obstacles refers to the difficulties experienced by migrants in the course of their integration to the new country, especially in the very beginning. For James it means not having the same rights of a native citizen (for example, the right to social security) and being an outcast if you cannot speak “their language.”

Regarding the French, he points out that they are generally more strict than Brazilians and are never happy, which makes them complain all the time. On the other hand, he claims they are polite and respectful to people, in case, workers, independently from their nationality. Indeed, he witnessed Brazilians being rude to their countrymen: “Ah, you’re Brazilian. You’ll be at my service now.”

A specific theme that rises from his report is the purchasing power of Brazilian migrants in Europe: “Here, you earn the same, but you can enjoy your salary more […] So, today I can have things, brands that in Brazil were extremely expensive are popular here, they’re cheaper.” He adds: “Our salary allows us to purchase things, right? And mobility, you get to travel.” He tells how he spent Christmas in Ukraine and it was comparatively cheaper than travelling in the Brazilian territory. In short, in James’ opinion, Europe allows more access to goods and services.

Manuel, in turn, considers the British tolerant as long as the migrant tries to adjust to the new life (language, social norms, etc.). He is the most insistent, out of the three interviewees, regarding the theme of integration, with a rather categorical approach to the theme, as seen in: “I believe that, if you come here, you have to learn the language […] You don’t wish to speak English? Don’t come here. You don’t want to learn how to live here? Don’t come here, go somewhere else.” It is noteworthy his use of the deontic modality (indicating obligation to something) expressed by the verb have to and by the imperative forms of verbs, as well as the general use of you, to mean any person in the same situation. In relation to Brazil, he says it’s a beautiful country, but “messy,” underdeveloped.

Pedro, as seen in IT1, mentions the opportunities that in his opinion are more recurrent in Portugal, which allows him to “do what he likes” (and live off it), despite admitting that the real-estate market in Lisbon (where he lives) has elevated the cost of living. He also emphasizes the fact that as a cultural promoter, he can deal with great artists (musicians, singers), especially Brazilian ones, when they perform in Portuguese territory. In his account of Brazil, however, words are marked with a negative axiology, when he cites problems such as violence, lack of (political) flexibility and the precarious public transport. Pedro is the only interviewee who mentions issues of safety (or lack thereof) in Brazil and admits to miss “certain things only found in Brazil,” that is, “simple things in life, really; for example, eating what you grow in the countryside and being near the family, too.” These are specific themes that both James and Manuel silenced.

The next imposed theme is the native perception on migrants, especially Brazilian migrants (IT3), which leads us to prejudice and discrimination discourses. This theme is intertwined with IT3 to the point that considering it a specific theme may not be entirely appropriate. Comparing narratives allows us to see that, in general, the Portuguese are more explicitly xenophobic, whereas the French and the English disguise it better (regarding Brazilians). Pedro, Manuel and James discuss the issue (in this respective order):

At first, when I got here, while I worked in hotels and restaurants, cases of xenophobia and racism were common, especially because I worked for older people, right? So, we worked in a hotel for veterans of war, men who fought in the war, so a completely messed up crowd […] this thing of “go back to your country” is perhaps one of the most iconic phrases of racism […] So, this is a very common phrase in Portugal, in general, and especially for Brazilians. We heard “go back to your country” a lot.

As a matter of fact, despite surveys conducted with Portuguese subjects that point to a positive image of Brazilians, seen as “nice and easy-going” (MARQUES; GÓIS, 2015, p.117), recent investigations on social networks have shown many biased and discriminatory attitudes toward Brazilians – therefore, it goes beyond the elderly citizens, as Pedro mentions. Valle-Nunes (2020, p.107), for example, examines open comments on the Facebook pages of Portuguese newspapers and lists some rather derogatory evaluation indexes with which Brazilian migrants are characterized: tricksters, illegal, parasite, impostors, criminals, idiots, corrupt, uncivilized, delinquent, arrogant, liars, ignorant, stupid, poor, among others. It seems to us that Brazilians are well-accepted since they do not “threat” Portuguese citizens in the form of job vacancies or University applications, for example.

Manuel, despite his claims that the British are, in general, tolerant, as we have seen, admits they are prejudiced but not against a particular nationality. He summarizes: “You’re either English or not,” which takes us to the dichotomy us (natives) vs. them (non-natives/foreigners) frequently cited in migratory contexts. He remembers that in one of his jobs as a salesperson, when the visits were scheduled and customers were told his name, some English customers would ask “Ah, where’s Manuel from?”. The company manager, an experienced man, would answer “He’s from here but I think his parents are from Brazil.” Sometimes, the customer would insist: “Can’t you send a British one?” in a clearly prejudiced attitude. Nowadays, as a businessman well-adapted to the British lifestyle (probably one of the reasons of his success), he confesses to act the same:

For example, in my company, the way we schedule a visit to the customer’s house, the salespeople are not migrants. We don’t do that. You can call it a bias, but it’s business, right? So, I avoid this problem [...] And when we schedule a visit [...] at first, we use a fictional name. […] We always give them a British name. So, we always use the same name. It used to be Craig Johnson; now, it’s Bruce Mellow. It has to be a white name (quotation marks), you know?

Finally, James claims that African and Arabians are the most prejudiced against in France. He claims never having experienced discrimination as a Brazilian migrant: “We are not as frowned upon as people from other countries, right? […] they do not think ours as a nationality that infests their country, you know.” James thinks this is due to the fact that the French are “familiar” with Brazilians: “When we say we’re Brazilian, they try to speak a word or two […] Brasil, Neymar, obrigado!”. Choosing the word familiar in the co-text contradicts infest, indicating proximity (acceptance) vs. distancing (refusal, estrangement) between the French culture and other cultures.

Concerning IT4, the contact between the interviewees with Brazilians and natives in European territory, Pedro, who has married a Portuguese woman briefly states that he has more contact with foreigners: 90% of his students are Portuguese and natives from different countries such as Germany and France; he has minimal contact with Brazilians. This seems indicative of his success as migrant and manager, although he does not make such claims.

In James’ and, more clearly, in Manuel’s statement, the notion of “diving” into a foreigner culture implies investing, to a degree, in the relationship with natives and foreigners. More than that: it means speaking English or French with Brazilians (or Portuguese) themselves. James, for example, shares an apartment with another Brazilian with ambitions similar to his own, as he explains. They only speak French and never use Portuguese: “We really want to keep in mind that if you’re in France you have to speak French.” The so-called ambitions (full integration to the French culture) of both friends oppose, according to James, the “conformist” attitude of Brazilians who only communicate in Portuguese and therefore fail to advance their fluency (and we add, their adaptation to the French lifestyle, which seems essential for success).

Manuel, in turn, claims that his contact with Brazilians is limited to his relatives: “It’s a choice I make, you know?”. He adds that: “I’m always involved with the English or the British or migrants from elsewhere. So, the common language has to be English.” Albeit married to a Portuguese woman, he admits they only speak English at home, including to their children, and Portuguese is restricted to their families or friends who come to visit and cannot speak English. This involvement with the foreign language is revealed in the difficulty Manuel has to express himself in his mother tongue, at specific moments of his interview, which made him either use words or entire sentences in English (code switching), or to ask the interviewer’s help, as verified in: “Ah, for me, I am, how do you say settled? I’m settled here. When we go on vacations, we used to say: ‘Let’s go home, home is in England’.”²⁰

This last sentence shows us the last of the imposed themes (IT5): the motivations to a possible return to Brazil. Blanchard et al. (2016, p.64) claim that returning to the home country, periodically or definitively, is always in sight for migrants. Let us see how the interviewees deal with this issue.

James, who’s been in Paris for less than a year, claims he will return to Brazil to visit his family and to launch the cosmetic brand he wants to create, but not for a definitive return since he does not intend to forgo the quality of life he has achieved in Europe. Pedro also dismisses the possibility of a definite return given Brazil’s current situation, which, in his opinion, is disheartening, especially for those who live off culture. He reports that during the first six years of his life in Europe, he never set foot in Brazil, however, especially after his daughter was born, he has been visiting relatives twice a year and, in his own metaphor, to “drink the waters” from back home. He acknowledges that working with Brazilian culture is “much more valuable” abroad, but he claims an interest in developing a project to get children off the streets, particularly in his hometown, therefore serving as a role model for them:

I wanted to do something to give the children opportunities […] because where I grew up, we had nothing, nothing to look at. There was the city’s band, that small thing and such, but nothing that attracted kids, that took them off the streets to say “Look, here’s John Doe, he left and made it, he did something good.” We didn’t have this mirror; nobody had made it.

Along with James and Pedro, albeit more emphatic, Manuel claims no interest in returning to Brazil, even if sporadically. He has not returned to Brazil once in his16 years living in London. He reaffirms his belonging to England, as seen in “Let’s go home, home is in England”; the only thing he misses is the weather but he concludes “I don’t miss Brazil.” He believes to be well-established and with access to everything he needs to live well. In summary, by characterizing a possible return to Brazil, even for sporadic visits, as out of the question, he seems to refuse the rescue of a past he wishes to forget.

Having explored the themes and the vocabulary, we move on to the third plane of global semantics, according to Maingueneau (2005): the manner of enunciation. Maingueneau (2005) argues that every discourse is related to a specific “way of saying” (recovered by indexes such as “tone,” choice of words and arguments etc.) that points to a “way of being.” Therefore, discourse has a fictive “voice” that ascertains “character” and “corporeality” to the enunciator – not, evidently, the speaker “in the flesh” – (MAINGUENEAU, 2005, pp.94-97).²¹

In later works, Maingueneau (2006; 2008, among others) relates the manner of enunciation to the Aristotelian notion of ethos that can be broadly defined as the image that speakers build of themselves in/through discourse.

The passages we have cited so far show the predominance of an assertive tone that indicates a more confident and determined ethos in the three live stories analyzed. Even during the hardest times lived by the narrators, especially in the process of adaptation to a new country, there was no tone of sorrow, sadness or nostalgia to suggest a fragilized ethos as verified elsewhere in the discourses of migrants and refugees (see LARA, 2018; 2019; 2021). If there is occasionally criticism and/or indignation, it does not shake the overall assertiveness in the three accounts, which discursively points to willing and resilient subjects (character and corporeality). The narrative of an episode when James attending to a French customer, can illustrate the criticism and indignation sometimes present in their accounts:

I myself once intimidated a customer because she complained all the time. I was working, and she was huffing in my face. I told her: ‘No, ma’am, here’s the deal: if you don’t have the time or if you’re in a hurry or you’re not patient enough, you can come back at a different time, but for you to be doing this to me, someone providing you with a service, that’s not fair’ […] No judgment, but it doesn’t justify poor treatment to someone just because I’m working for you.

The choice for the verb huffing and the repetition of similar expressions (you don’t have the time, you’re in a hurry, you’re not patient) intensify the customer’s rudeness and justify James’s criticism and indignation. It is noteworthy the presence of one resource in all three narratives, particularly in James’: the direct speech, which, as we signaled (section 1), is part of shown/marked heterogeneity (AUTHIER-REVUZ, 1990a; 1990b).

In his reading of Authier-Revuz’ works concerning heterogeneity, Maingueneau (1991, p.134) points out that direct speech is a type of theatricalization of a previous enunciation. Therefore, by reestablishing the very communicative situation, it “authenticates” reported statements, creating an effect of reality. In the narratives analyzed here, the direct speech serves basically to simulate a dialogue with someone else (as in the excerpt above), but it can also assume the form of an internal “dialogue,” which is something James frequently does, particularly to explain his decisions as seen in: “So I said: ‘I’ll spend a year. The visa charges much less than all the other requirements’” or “So, I say, I told myself: ‘Well, I have the possibility’.” In this case, it is important to notice the use of verbs of utterance say and tell instead of think. Then, by using direct speech to simulate dialogues with someone (frequently, a native) or with oneself the subject creates a meaning effect of truth, making it seem that the integrity and the authenticity of what has been said is preserved.

In addition to direct speech, a different phenomenon related to shown (marked) heterogeneity noticed in Pedro’s narrative is the speaker’s metadiscourse (that is, the comments that speakers add to their own speech). In this case, the frequent use of “let’s say.” Authier-Revuz (1990b) claims that such comments work as injunctions that establish a joint enunciation with the tone of an apology so the co-speakers compromise to certain terms that are not really satisfactory. Here are two examples: 1) “Portugal is perhaps the closest, right, let’s say, this door, right, to Europe”; 2) “…forró expanded, culture has expanded, right, and today in Lisbon there’s a luxury team, let’s say, in music, right, popular Brazilian music.”

In both cases, Pedro aims to establish a joint enunciation with the interviewer, signaling, at the same time, that his own words – door to Europe (meaning Portugal) and luxury team in music (the group he belongs to) perhaps are not the most adequate. This very purpose of creating a certain empathy with the interlocutor and implicating her in the discourse is verified in the excessive use of words/expressions with phatic function (you know, right, you see) in all three reports.

Concerning the last plane in our analysis, we recall that deixis in linguistics means words as “I,” “here,” “now” (hence, person, space and time) that can only be understood in their particular communicative situation. Discursively, we shall claim that given the system of semantic restrictions, each discourse builds a certain spatial-temporal enunciative deixis (and, we add, a personal deixis) to authorize and legitimate their enunciation (MAINGUENEAU, 2005, p.93). James’, Manuel’s and Pedro’s narratives – migratory narratives, in general – build two opposing phases: a here-now in the foreign country and a there-then in the home country. All three interviewees, as shown in particular during the analysis of IT5, consider here-now more advantageous than there-then, which makes them rule out the possibility of a definite return to the home country.

The category of person, as expected from the very genre “life stories,” means the predominance of the singular form of the first-person in all three reports. The use of we is also present (in Brazilian Portuguese, nós is often replaced with a gente, given the informality of the communication), which assumes, more frequently, an excluding value: “That’s when we traveled: I went to Amsterdam and she went straight to Switzerland” [E aí foi quando a gente viajou: eu para Amsterdã e ela foi direto pra Suíça], where we means I (James) + she (the friend); or a “mixed” value: “In Brazil we waste a lot of time commuting,” where we means I (Pedro) + you (the interviewer) + them (all Brazilians). The use of inclusive we (I + you, the interviewer) is much less present, occurring, for instance, in “let’s say.”

In addition, you is present in three situations: simulating a dialogue with someone as in James’ account of the French customer: “No, ma’am, here’s the deal: if you don’t have the time or if you’re in a hurry or you’re not patient enough, you can come back at a different time…”; with generic value to mean anyone in the same situation, as in Manuel’s account: “There’s nothing more frustrating than, for example, when you’re on the bus, on the subway or watching TV and you have no idea what’s going on”; and the moments when the interviewee addresses the interviewer through phatic words you know, you see, look. Nonetheless, these narratives show predominance of an I that tells the story to the other, followed by we [nós/a gente] (mostly, excluding).

After exploring all four planes of global semantics according to Maingueneau (2005) – themes, vocabulary, enunciation manner and enunciative deixis – followed by other categories, such as direct speech and metadiscourse (shown/marked heterogeneity), we move on to our final remarks to answer our main question: how to explain, through James’, Manuel’s and Pedro’s reports, their success in Europe?

Conclusion

By following the narrative interview script and adopting a comparative approach (horizontal dimension), we tried to show how migrants (re)present themselves in their reports (ethos); which images they build of their country of origin (Brazil) and the country of arrival (either France or England or Portugal) and their interactions with natives and Brazilians themselves in a new society; and, finally, how they understand the possibility of going back to their home country.

Having observed the differences between the three “narrators” and the specificities of the countries to which they migrated, we can understand, from the points of approximation in their reports, they have a discourse in common that aims to explain how they dealt (and still deal) with the migratory situation and how they managed to succeed, each in their own way and specificities, across the Atlantic. This shared discourse, at times explicit in their reports and at other times observed in-between the lines, relies on three characteristics which in James’s, Manuel’s and Pedro’s perspectives are essential for migrants: 1) the courage to “take risks,” to seek new horizons and opportunities; 2) the determination to overcome obstacles; 3) the willingness to totally integrate to the country of arrival, “diving” into the new culture (language, life style) and keeping good relationships with the natives. After all, these are aspects that they mobilize and explore (discursively) to justify this apparent “recipe for success.”

In accordance to the objective presented in the Introduction, without discussing issues of merit, we only state that what matters most for us is the opportunity to make heard these “marginal voices” that cross (and are crossed by) the various voices of migrants (or non-migrants) throughout human history. Subjects then situate their discourse in relation to the other’s discourse. This other involves not only their interlocutor, but also other constituted discourses that emerge in their speech as a fragment of the (social-discursive) representations circulating in a given historical time and social space. The subject’s discourse, then, is dialogically thread in the interplay of voices that complement, compete with, contradict one another in that “living, tension-filled interaction” mentioned by Bakhtin (2015).²²

• Translated by Larissa de Pinho Cavalcanti – [e-mail]
• 1
  In this paper, we will use migration (and the correlate migrant), since, as postulated by Calabrese and Veniard (2018, p.11), it is a relatively neutral word that simply describes an issue of mobility. This prevents the dichotomy immigrant/emigrant, since the emigrant in the country of origin is the immigrant in the country of arrival. Notwithstanding, we preserve immigrant/immigration (or emigrant/emigration) in the citations that employ those terms.
• 2
  This article is a result of our post-doctoral research project “The discourse of Brazilian emigrants in the European context” [O discurso de emigrantes brasileiros no contexto europeu], developed at Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP), from August 2019 to July 2020, supervised by Professor Beth Brait. From October 2019 to March 2020, we completed our Senior Visiting Professorship at Université Paris-Est Créteil (UPEC) under supervision of Professor Dominique Ducard. The professorship grant was awarded by the Institutional Internationalization Program [Programa Institucional de Internacionalização] - Print/CAPES-UFMG.
• 3
  Original: “sans voix.”
• 4
  Original: “sans parole.”
• 5
  Original: “Les représentations communes en matière de circulation des énoncés impliquent une différence entre une sphère qu’on pourrait dire ‘haute’ et une sphère ‘basse’. Un grand nombre de gens expriment en effet le sentiment de ‘ne pas être entendus’ [...] Leur parole leur apparaît doublement bass: venue d’en bas, de gens sans importance, elle n’est pas entendue, comme s’ils parlaient ‘à voix basse’ S’impose alors la nécessité du médiateur qui pourra les rendre audibles, faire accéder leur point de vue à la sphère haute.”
• 6
  It is outside the scope of this paper to discuss the forms assumed by this mediation, an issue that Maingueneau (2020) discusses at length in his own article.
• 7
  The conception of images or social-discursive representations assumed in this paper is inspired by Charaudeau (2007; 2015). Let us state, albeit briefly, that it comprises ways of “seeing” and “judging” the world that are manifested in discourse.
• 8
  The difficult task of reproducing in writing the orality of the interviews falls upon the researcher. We have used the norms from the ICAR Laboratory at Lyon University (CALABRESE; VENIARD, 2018). To present the excerpts in this article (see section 2), we included punctuation marks and removed elements such as pauses and hesitations, preserving, nonetheless, the marks of oral speech and the “mistakes” in Portuguese (subject-verb agreement, grammatical collocation, among others). We aimed, then, to be truthful to the enunciation, even though in the “trap of transcription,” as claimed by Barthes (apud DUCARD, 2015, p.111), there is the loss of that “innocence” present in the live and immediate speech.
• 9
  See Lara and Limberti (2015; 2016), for example.
• 10
  It is important to remember that FDA does not impose an existing method. It is the researcher’s task considering their specific object of investigation, their goals and hypothesis as well as the materials at hand to build their own analytical device based on the theoretical principles of FDA (ORLANDI, 1999, p.27).
• 11
  In addition to the aforementioned planes, which constitute, for us, the most productive in the analysis of life stories (see LARA, 2018; 2019; 2021), there are intertextuality, the statutes of the enunciator and of the interlocutor and the cohesion manner. We must clarify that the four planes we have chosen are used in a more comprehensive way than Maingueneau’s. However, we do not see any incompatibilities between his propositions and our “reading” of these planes.
• 12
  AUTHIER-REVUZ, J. Enunciative Heterogeneity. In: The Discourse Studies Reader: Main Currents in Theory and Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2014, p.156.
• 13
  See footnote 12, p.163.
• 14
  Original: “correspond à la présence localisable d'un discours autre dans le fil du texte.”; “Les formes marquées, en revanche, sont signalées de manière univoque ;”. CHARAUDEAU, P.; MAINGUENEAU, D. Dictionnaire d'Analyse du Discours. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 2002, p.292.
• 15
  Original: “não existe nem um sujeito absolutamente dono de si, nem um sujeito totalmente dominado pelo que lhe vem de fora.”
• 16
  We cannot forget that Manuel and Pedro are much older than James and have been in Europe for longer (see chart 1). Therefore, we refrain from measuring their success in favor of pointing out their personal and professional growth in their trajectory as migrants.
• 17
  Original: “le mot en lui-même ne constitue pas une unité d’analyse pertinente.” MAINGUENEAU, D. Genèses du discours. 12 ed. Bruxelles: Pierre Mardaga Éditeur. 1984, p.86.
• 18
  To facilitate our explanation and make reading more fluid, the reports of Brazilian migrants are presented in the English version only. The original lines in Brazilian Portuguese can be consulted in the Portuguese version of the article. Exceptions are made when the understanding of the analysis or the text itself is best achieved through the original Brazilian Portuguese..
• 19
  Would you like to start with an appetizer? Or see the wine menu?
• 20
  Original: “Ah, pra mim, eu estou, como é que fala settled? Ah, estabelecido aqui. Quando a gente sai de férias, falava: ‘Let’s go home, home is in England’.”
• 21
  See reference in footnote 17, p.100.
• 22
  BAKHTIN, M. M. Discourse in the Novel. In: The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1981. 259-422.

REFERENCES

• AUTHIER-REVUZ, J. Heterogeneidade(s) enunciativa(s). Tradução Celene Cruz e João Wanderley Geraldi. Cadernos de Estudos Linguísticos, Campinas, n. 19, p.25-42, jul./dez. 1990a. Disponível em: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/cel/article/view/8636824.Acesso em 22 de junho de 2020.
  » https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/cel/article/view/8636824
• AUTHIER-REVUZ, J. La non-coïncidence interlocutive et ses reflets méta-énonciatifs. In: BERRENDONER, A.; PARRET, H. (Éd.). L’interaction communicative Berne/Frankfurt/ N.Y. Paris, 1990b, p.173-193.
• BAKHTIN, M. O discurso no romance. In: BAKHTIN, M. Teoria do romance I. A estilística. Tradução, prefácio, notas e glossário Paulo Bezerra. Organização da edição russa Serguei Bocharov e Vadim Kójinov. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2015, p.19-241. [1930-1936]).
• BARTRAM, D.; POROS, M. V.; MONFORTE, P. Key Concepts in Migration London: Sage, 2014.
• BLANCHARD, P.; DUBUCS, H.; GASTAUT, Y. Atlas des immigrations en France Paris: Autrement, 2016.
• BERTAUX, D. Le récit de vie. Paris: Armand Colin, 2005.
• CLOCHARD, O. Les réfugiés dans le monde entre protection et illégalité. EchoGéo, v. 2, p.1-8, sep./nov. 2007. Disponível em: http://echogeo.revues.org/1696.Acesso em 30 de março, 2019.
  » http://echogeo.revues.org/1696
• CALABRESE, L. Diversité, entre constat et injonction. In: CALABRESE, L; VENIARD, M. (org.). Penser les mots, dire la migration Bruxelles/Paris: Academia/L’Harmattan, 2018, p.71-79.
• CALABRESE, L.; VENIARD, M. (org). Penser les mots, dire la migration Bruxelles/Paris: Academia/L’Harmattan, 2018.
• CHARAUDEAU, P. Les stéréotypes, c’est bien. Les imaginaires, c’est mieux. In: BOYER, H. (org.). Stéréotypage, stéréotypes : fonctionnements ordinaires et mises en scène Paris: L’Harmattan, 2007.
• CHARAUDEAU, P. Os imaginários de verdade do discurso político. In: CHARAUDEAU, P. Discurso político Tradução Fabiana Komesu e Dilson Ferreira da Cruz. São Paulo: Contexto, 2015, p.185-245.
• DUCARD, D. Dar a palavra: da reportagem radiofônica à ficção documental. Tradução Glaucia Proença Lara e Aline Saddi Chaves. In: LARA, G. P.; LIMBERTI, R. P. (org.). Discurso e (des)igualdade social São Paulo: Contexto, 2015, p.109-128.
• EGREJA, C.; PEIXOTO, J. Os imigrantes brasileiros e o mercado de trabalho. In: PEIXOTO, J. et al. (org.). Vagas atlânticas: migrações entre Brasil e Portugal no início do século XXI. Lisboa: Mundos Sociais, 2015, p.59-87.
• LAACHER, S. Ce qu’immigrer veut dire Paris: Le Cavalier Bleue, 2012.
• LARA, G. M. P. A(s) voz(es) dos vulneráveis: narrativas de vida de imigrantes e refugiados à luz da análise do discurso. In: BARONAS, R. L. et al. (org.). As ciências da linguagem e a(s) voz(es) e o(s) silenciamento(s) de vulneráveis. Campinas: Pontes, 2018, p.145-166.
• LARA, G. M. P. De “Ouvrons les portes” a “Em casa no Brasil”: olhares contemporâneos sobre a migração. Gláuks, Viçosa, v. 19, n. 1, jan-jun 2019, p.79-100. Disponível em: https://www.revistaglauks.ufv.br/Glauks/issue/view/24/27.Acesso em 22 de junho, 2020.
  » https://www.revistaglauks.ufv.br/Glauks/issue/view/24/27
• LARA, G. M. P. Migrations contemporaines et récits de vie en France et au Brésil. In: TAUZIN-CASTELLANOS, I. (org.). De l’émigration en Amérique Latine à la crise migratoire Bordeaux, Cairn éditions/Morlaàs, 2021, p.1-14.
• LARA, G. P.; LIMBERTI, R. P. (org.). Discurso e (des)igualdade social São Paulo: Contexto, 2015.
• LARA, G. M. P.; LIMBERTI, R. C. P. (org.). Representações do outro: discurso, (des)igualdade e exclusão. Belo Horizonte: Autêntica, 2016.
• LE BRAS, H. L’invention de l’immigré Paris: L’Aube, 2014.
• MACHADO, I. L. Narrativa de vida: um espaço de liberação para vozes femininas? In: MACHADO, I. L.; SANTOS, J. B. C.; JESUS, S. N. (org.). Análise do discurso. Afinidades epistêmicas franco-brasileiras. Curitiba: CRV, 2016, p.12-22.
• MACHADO, I. L; LESSA, C. H. Reflexões sobre o gênero narrativa de vida do ponto de vista da análise do discurso. In: JESUS, S. N.; SILVA, S. M. R. da. (org.). O discurso & outras materialidades São Carlos: Pedro & João, 2013, p.102-122.
• MAINGUENEAU, D. L’Analyse du discours: introduction aux lectures de l’archive. Paris: Hachette, 1991.
• MAINGUENEAU, D. Heterogeneidade mostrada/constitutiva. Tradução Sírio Possenti. In: CHARAUDEAU, P.; MAINGUENEAU, D. (Éd.). Dicionário de análise do discurso São Paulo: Contexto, 2004, p.261-262.
• MAINGUENEAU, D. Gênese dos discursos Tradução Sírio Possenti. Curitiba: Criar, 2005.
• MAINGUENEAU, D. Cenas da enunciação Organização Sírio Possenti e Maria Cecília Pérez de Souza-e-Silva. Curitiba: Criar, 2006.
• MAINGUENEAU, D. A propósito do ethos Tradução Luciana Salgado. In: MOTTA, A. R.; SALGADO, L. (org.). Ethos discursivo São Paulo: Contexto. 2008, p.11-29.
• MAINGUENEAU, D. Faire entendre les sans-voix. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, n. 24, abr. 2020. Disponível em: http://journals.openedition.org/aad/4131.Acesso em 22 de junho, 2020.
  » http://journals.openedition.org/aad/4131
• MARQUES, J. C.; GÓIS, P. Processos de integração dos imigrantes brasileiros na sociedade portuguesa. In: PEIXOTO, J. et al. (org.). Vagas atlânticas: migrações entre Brasil e Portugal no início do século XXI. Lisboa: Mundos Sociais, 2015, p.109-134.
• MOREIRA, G. M. Figures de migrants brésiliens en France: approche anthropologique et sociolinguistique. 2018. 1495 f. Thèse (Doctorat en Linguistique) – Université Paul Valéry - Montpellier III, Montpellier, 2018.
• ORLANDI, E. P. Análise de discurso Princípios & procedimentos. Campinas: Pontes, 1999.
• ORLANDI, E. P. A linguagem e o seu funcionamento: as formas do discurso. Campinas: Pontes, 2001.
• PEIXOTO, J. Imigração, emprego e mercado de trabalho em Portugal: os dilemas do crescimento e o impacto da recessão. In: FONSECA, M. L. et al (org.) Migrações na Europa e em Portugal. Coimbra: Almedina, 2013, p.158-184.
• PORTES, J. Immigration London: Sage, 2019.
• POSSENTI, S. Apresentação. In: MAINGUENEAU, D. Gênese dos discursos. Tradução Sírio Possenti. Curitiba: Criar, 2005. p.7-9.
• VALLE-NUNES, L. H. As redes sociais e a construção dos antagonismos: a imigração brasileira em Portugal representada em comentários do facebook. Matraga, v. 27, n. 49, p.100-116, jan./abr. 2020. Disponível em: https://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/index.php/matraga/article/view/44154/33376.Acesso em 17 de julho, 2020.
  » https://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/index.php/matraga/article/view/44154/33376

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  17 Sept 2021
• Date of issue
  July/Sept 2021

History

• Received
  12 Jan 2021
• Accepted
  12 June 2021