THE PORTUGUESE LANGUAGE BETWEEN POLITICS AND

LANGUAGE POLICIES

A LÍNGUA PORTUGUESA ENTRE AS POLÍTICAS E AS

POLÍTICAS LINGUÍSTICAS
Resumo: As leituras de Ribeiro (1947, 1987), Wartburg (1950), Silva Neto (1952), Teyssier (1980), Mattoso
(1982) e Mattos e Silva (1988) nos ensinam, com riqueza de detalhes, a história de Portugal, encetando com a sua
fundação à expansão marítima, promovida pelo infante D. Henrique, em 1415. Essas leituras nos mostram também os
primeiros passos de uma política linguística, a exemplo do estabelecimento de normas linguísticas (ortografia e
gramática) para distinguir a língua portuguesa das demais. Séculos mais tarde, em outros territórios e por conta de
outras políticas, há a criação de dois exames internacionais para aferir proficiência em língua portuguesa: o CELPE-
Bras (exame criado pelo Brasil) e os exames do sistema CAPLE(criado por Portugal). Para Rajagopalan (2013) e
Canaragajah (2013) as políticas linguísticas devem ser estudadas por cientistas políticos, não por outra área. Com
respeitosa discordância, mostrarei, com base em Scaramucci (1995, 1999), Dell’Isola et al. (2003), Dell’Isola (2014)
Diniz (2014), como a criação desses dois exames parte de um anseio linguístico que, para existir, deve se resvalar em
uma estrutura política; assim, não se excluindo de uma proposta expansionista e, de certa forma, imperialista e quais
os diálogos que esses exames estabelecem com a ideia de lusofonia, globalização e geopolítica.
Palavras-chave: Políticas linguísticas; Geopolítica; Língua Portuguesa

Abstract: The readings of Ribeiro (1947, 1987), Wartburg (1950), Silva Neto (1952), Teyssier (1980),
Mattoso (1982) and Mattos e Silva (1988) provides with vivid colors details of the history of Portugal, beginning with
its foundation to the sea expansion promoted by D. Henrique, in 1415. Such important readings also help show the
first steps of language policies, as the establishment of linguistics standards (orthography and grammar) to distinguish
the Portuguese Language from others. Centuries later, in other lands and due to other policies, there is the creation of
two international exams to test proficiency in Portuguese language: CELPE-Bras (exam created by Brazil) and the
exams of the CAPLE system (created by Portugal). Rajagopalan (2013) and Canagarajah (2013) debates over the
difference among ‘language policy’ and ‘language politics’. To both authors what there is in geopolitics might be
called ‘language politics’. The authors are also agreeable to the fact that ‘language politics’ must be studied in the
field of political science. With respectful disagreement, I will use lessons from historical linguistics to set a timeline
of historical actions involving language and politics in the past of the Portuguese language to demonstrate how these
studies could be done in the linguistics field, and how these actions categorize language planning (HAUGEN, 1961).
Furthermore, based on Scaramucci (1995, 1999), Dell’Isola et al. (2003), Dell’Isola (2014) and Diniz (2014), I will
show how the creation of these two exams is also part of language planning, but on a different perspective; a form of
language planning that has its base set on a linguistic wish that, to exist, must rely on a political structure; therefore,
complying with an expansionist and imperialistic view.

Keywords: Language policies; Geopolitics; Portuguese Language

 1First words
According to Haugen (1961), language planning constitutes “all conscious efforts that aim
at changing the linguistic behaviour of a speech community”. That would include the elaboration
of a normative orthography, of a grammar and a dictionary to guide both written and oral use and
the limits of a language, not to mention its maintenance through language education. I daresay that
is why we are taken to the road of language planning when we think about standardized tests.
When having that in mind, we must also question: who is authorized to make such
planning? To whose interest does it serve? What is the importance of such a job?
To answer these questions, and even make new ones, it is necessary to follow Pennycook’s
(2008) footsteps and seek aid from different fields of study, for language is not in itself. In the
work mentioned, Pennycook also challenges the historicization of language, standard language,
national languages, and teaches us that these notions are somewhat recent creations. Hobsbawn
(1992), after an extensive and systematic study, goes beyond and states that the ideas of language,
mainly national language, can only be observed if one takes into consideration what underlies the
idea of nation and nationalism. A very similar idea was stated by the António de Nebrija
(1992[1492], p.5), the first grammarian of the Spanish Language: “language has always been the
companion of empire”.
These quotes help understand the logistics intertwined in the complex relations concerning
language and politics. To Canagarajah (2013) and Rajagopalan (2013), all actions regarding the
regulated use of language has to do with politics, therefore, should be studied by political scientists.
Taking their provocative ideas into consideration, in this paper I will make use of historical studies
about the Portuguese empire and documents regulating the use of the Portuguese language in the
past and in the present to investigate the political actions of the expansion of the Portuguese empire
in the 12th and 16th centuries and their relations with language, and bring into question how 500
years later these actions are still reverberating among the relations of Portugal and Brazil.
Furthermore, I will analyze how the standardized tests produced by these who countries to assess
language proficiency are conceived.
Bu before that, it is necessary to lay down my understanding of policies and politics. I
understand policies as a bunch of ideas or plans of what to do in situations that were officially
agreed by a group of people, a company, a government or a political party. Politics, on the other
hand, refers not only to object of the field of political science, but also to the activities involving
members of the legislative branch, or people who try to cast their influence on how a country is
ruled (the establishment, for example).
Garcez (2013), argues that this is a mere play on semantics and that in practical terms this
difference is almost non-existent. I do not totally disagree with him, but this difference must be
made clear in examples in which the politics and policies differ.
As an example of politics, based on the Second Amendment to the U.S. constitution, the
Arizona State Constitution1, on article 2, section 26 says: “The right of the individual citizen to
bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall
be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed
body of men”. However, in the grounds of the University of Arizona this law is overruled by an
institutional policy2 signed by the Board of Regents that states the prohibition on carrying
weapons.

2 Summarized Language Planning for the Portuguese language in the past

To the first grammarian of Portuguese language, Fernão de Oliveira ([1536]1988), the users
of a language “make” the language. Being a descriptivist, his original words do not refer to
prescription, but I believe it is possible to add this extension.
This shows that language planning is not done to meet users’ needs. Actually, sometimes
they reflect the opposite direction of the linguistic reality, forcing a division between spoken
(informal, creative, spontaneous) and written (formal, factual, planned) language.
A sociohistorical narrative of language planning in the Portuguese language is
amalgamated with the history of the Portuguese empire and its expansion. Being the Portuguese
Empire formed in the 12th century, it would portrait a long historical account. For this reason, I
will call attention to actions that somehow involves language, based on Ribeiro (1947, 1987),
Wartburg (1950), Silva Neto (1952), Teyssier (1980), Mattoso (1982), Mattos e Silva (1988) and
Castro (1991).
1147: First Portuguese expansionist politics. Now independent from the king of León
and Castile [Spain], by the Treaty of Zamora, the shire became the Kingdom of Portugal. Its king,

1
Available at: https://www.azleg.gov/constitution/?article=2. Accessed on Dec. 2017
2
Available at: http://policy.arizona.edu/taxonomy/term/4. Accessed on Dec. 2017
Don Afonso Henriques, expanded the lands by expelling the Muslims and conquering the lands of
Santarén and Lisbon; in 1157 he did the same with the lands of Alcácer do Sal, followed by the
conquest of Évora, in 1165.
1214: First movement towards a language policy. The language spoken and written was
known as galego-portugues (a language in-between Portuguese and Galician). Little by little the
users of the language were writing texts that would differ the language from outside the boarders
of the Portuguese kingdom, Galician. The 1175 text Noticia de Fiadores (a promise of payment, a
bill) was the first, followed by 1196 Ora faz host’o senhor de Navarra (a ballad), 1211 Noticia do
Torto (a non-literary narrative accounting an injustice made), and 1214 Testamento de Don Afonso
II (Don Afonso the 2nd’s will).
1415: The second Portuguese expansionist politics. The infant Don Henrique begins the
sea expansion of the Portuguese kingdom, beginning with Ceuta, in the North of Africa (1415).
This movement set Portugal as the forerunner of sea expansion, and possessor of the navigation
charts to the waters only sailed by its people.
1536-1552: First language politics. In 1536 Fernão de Oliveira writes the first
(descriptive) grammar of the Portuguese language. In 1540 João de Barros writes the first
prescriptive grammar of the Portuguese language. This grammar was adopted by the Portuguese
government. According to Cantarino (2008), it was the first didactic illustrated book in the world
and was used to teach Portuguese in future centuries over the colonies.
These historical examples (being it made by the users or regulated by an institution)
demonstrate an intricate relation between language and politics, and how one can serve another. It
is important to highlight that it is a rather symbiotic interaction than a hierarchical one. The
language written in the grammars and texts had to be acknowledge ad quem, i.e. by a superior
instance. But this superior instance also needed ‘that’ language to expand its territories,
conquest/overthrow a people (and their culture) and maintain in that place a new language and
culture, thus accumulating symbolic capital (BOURDIEU, 1986).

3 Geopolitics and language: another intricate relation

The previous facts are examples of how long/well-established the process of language
planning of the Portuguese language is. Language planning also has to do with taking ownership
of local lexicon and syntactic features but ensuring the recognition and perpetuation of the standard
language. Once the Portuguese kingdom became an empire, conquering lands all over the globe,
how to measure the impacts and foresee the challenges of the language in those areas?
This task can be done with the aid of geopolitics. To Daniel Deudney, responsible for the
entry ‘geopolitics’3 on the online Encyclopaedia Britannica, geopolitics is the “analysis of the
geographic influences on power relationships in international relations”.
Rajagopalan (2008) and Muller (2008) defend the term ‘geopolitics of language’, once it
is more focused on the effects of language (language planning, language ideologies etc) across
countries. This is an important understanding for those who view some languages as tools for
communication, such as a lingua franca.
Geopolitics of language has to do with the politics concerning/towards language from a
country to the same country and from a country to others. An illustration of this are the official
languages and the regulations to its recognition, establishment and broadcasting. Having an official
language means that all documents (to be considered as documents) must be written in that
language. That may cause some tension in trading countries. I suspect that is the reason for England
not to have an official language.
Standardized tests are great tools in geopolitics. Their existence shows the interest of
people from one country in another. They also play an important role in diplomacy with countries
that speak different languages as well as with countries ‘united’ by the same language. I agree with
Oliveira (2004): proficiency tests are political-linguistic instruments of first magnitude” (p. 165).
They show a contemporary way of language appropriation made by the national states that now
take command of language circulation, on language planning (deciding which varieties should be
part of their corpus, thus being tested), or on political planning (ensuring by the means of
international agreement the monopoly of the official presence of an specific language in certain
foreign countries).
In these terms, they are responsible for certifying foreigners who are and who are not
proficient in the language; therefore, able or unable to apply for job positions or enter universities,
for example. There may be contestations of different nature concerning these tests. In countries

3
Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/geopolitics. Accessed on Jan. 2018.
that share the same language and have different exams, the question imposed is: why not having
one only test?
This situation happens in English speaking countries, with the exams TOEFL (most
accepted inside the U.S) and IELTS (most accepted outside the U.S). It is a similar case to Spanish
language and the exams DELE (designed by Spain and accepted world-wide) and CELU (designed
by Argentina and accepted there and in some countries in South-America). And it is not different
to Portuguese language and the exams CELPE-Bras (designed and accepted in Brazil) and the tests
produced by the system CAPLE (designed by Portugal and accepted there and in some [ex]
colonies, except in Brazil).

4 Language planning and geopolitics of the Portuguese language in the present

In Portuguese speaking countries it is not that different. The Portuguese language, just like
any language, has been deterritorialized. Due to this effect new, creative and unpredictable
linguistical realizations are made possible. There are now different ways of being and acting in the
Portuguese language.
Orthography, teaching, implementation and promotion of the Portuguese language all over
the globe is part of the language politics and policies (OLIVEIRA, 1999, 2008, 2013, 2016). In
the 21st century the language politics involving the Portuguese language are not quite like the ones
from the past. Knowing what the Portuguese language “is”, it is necessary to create strategies to
assess how proficient one is the language.
For the so-called native speakers of Portuguese language there are different test in the
school system of each country responsible for that. I say “so-called” because there is a huge debate
concerning the term native speaker. Gadet and Pêcheux (2004) like to think about the users of a
language as “citizens”. That would put at the same level: people born in the same speaking country,
people from different countries sharing the ‘same’ language, people who are learning the language,
heritage speakers etc. To the authors (2004, p.37), “to become citizens, the subjects must […] free
themselves from historical particularities that thwarts them: their local traditions, ancestors
conceptions, their ‘prejudices’… and their native language”. Having said that, it is necessary to
remind of the distinction made by Payer (2007) concerning national language X native language.
According to the author they refer to:
 distinct language dimensions concerning memory, which presents distinct discursive
operation, having different forms of participation in the processes of subjective
constitution. Focusing in particular in the history of Brazilian Portuguese, we can assume
that different politics work(ed) to the construction of a national dimension for this
language, as it is shown in different works. More recently, however, especially after the
configuration of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUL) it has been possible to
observe the recrudescence of language politics (more, or less explicit) that build other
dimension for Brazilian Portuguese: the one of transnational language (DINIZ, 2010,
2012; ZOPPI-FONTANA, 2009, 2010). It is, in the words of Zoppi-Fontana (2009) “the
status of a national language that trespasses the boarders of State-Nation in which it was
historically constituted and with which it maintains strong metonymical ties4. (p.119)

This excerpt makes possible to visualize the geopolitics of the Portuguese language. Payer,
however, does not mention the fact that besides sharing the same name, the language spoken in
Brazil is very different from the one spoken in Portugal. It has to do with mainly cultural
differences that play distinctive roles on language and the ways of viewing the language. In other
words, different ways of assessing a language that is similar only in the name. This similarity is
responsible to sew under the same name language-cultures totally different.
Bearing these premises in mind, we now see that there are different ways of being in the
Portuguese language. The challenge is: how to assess language proficiency5 to those who do not
have Portuguese as their national language?
Not only in Portuguese language, but also in many others, language proficiency is
assessed/tested and certified by exams made by institutions somewhat linked to the government.
These exams are linguistic bulwarks of a national language and bring with themselves the tincture
of their nation because they bring their countries as authors of themselves (DINIZ, 2014). On what
concerns the Portuguese language there are:
1- The exams designed by the Center for Assessment of Portuguese as a Foreign Language
(Centro de Avaliação de Português Língua Estrangeira – CAPLE), made based on the
European Portuguese and has it assessment scales set on the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages.
2- CELPE-BRAS: designed by the Anísio Teixeira National Institute of Educational
Research (Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira –

4
Translated by me.
5
There is vast literature with the term ‘linguistic proficiency’. This term may refer to knowledge
of structures of the language. I understand ‘language proficiency’ as a way of minimizing this conflict,
understanding language not only in structural specifications, but also cultural and of usage.
 INEP). It is acknowledged by the Ministry for International Relations and it is based
on the Brazilian Portuguese.

Each different exam has its own layout and ideas about assessment, proficiency and its
implications. In the following part I will discuss the different views on assessment, proficiency
and language and their implications in language geopolitics and language education.

5 CAPLE, Celpe-BRAS, language politics and language ideologies

The first test of Portuguese for speakers of other languages was the CELPE-Bras
(SCARAMUCCI, 1995, 1999; DELL’ISOLLA et al 2003; DINIZ, 2014). It was based on
placement test applied at University of Campinas (UNICAMP). Scholars from the field of
Portuguese as a Foreign Language, in Brazil, worked hard to provide an example test to be present
to the Ministry of Education, which liked the idea and approved it, along with the Ministry of
International Relations, in 1998. In the same year in Portugal the Center for Assessment of
Portuguese as a Foreign Language-CAPLE was born, applying their first exams in the following
year. In 2000, according to Diniz, the Camões Institute (executive part for the Portuguese tests)
got in contact with the Brazilian commission with the idea of uniting both exams. The Brazilian
commission presented another proposal: equivalence of the tests in both countries, which was
denied by Portugal.
These tests are different in layout as well as ideologies. In terms of layout, CELPE-Bras is
very much like a placement test. It is based on tasks, indicating that the candidate must have a
good level of literacy. The tasks tackle reading, writing and conversational skills (integrated
speaking and listening, through provocative topics in which the candidate must interact). The test
assesses six different levels of proficiency, but provides certificate for only four: intermediate,
upper intermediate, advanced, upper advanced. Because CAPLE is based on the CEFR, they
provide five general tests (which means that it is needed to know one’s level, according to the
CEFR, to take each of them. A B1 speaker should not take a B2 test, for example): CIPLE (A2),
DEPLE (B1), DIPLE (B2), DAPLE (C1) and DUPLE (C2). These tests are not task-based, the
candidates are assed on reading, writing, listening and speaking in different papers.
From the layout of the tests and what is needed to do in each of them, it is possible to say
that they convey different language ideologies. Silverstein (1979) defines language ideology as
“sets of beliefs about language articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived
language structure and use” (p.193). These beliefs are influenced by grammars, language manuals,
tests, all sort of prescriptive views of language etc. One6 of the different language ideologies in the
tests is the definition of proficiency7.
CAPLE’s tests contain questions about grammatical structure of the language and
orthography, what does not happen with CELPE-Bras. This small example can be used to think
that while CAPLE’s tests are oriented by a functional-structural view of language, CELPE-Bras
moves to an interactional view of language, the one used on every-day situations, not only in a
test.
Final considerations

Since its creation Portugal demonstrated its will to grow. Despite having one of the oldest
established borders of Europe, its growth trespassed itself and they gained the world. Wherever
the empire would go, the language was behind. They invested time and money to the
systematization of the language. Language that is no longer from the Portuguese people, but the
world’s. Other politics are now made for the expansion and maintenance of this language,
wherever it is spoken. Portuguese speaking countries in Africa whose linguistic (syntactical,
morphological, phonological etc.) systems were based on the European one are now investing on
describing THEIR Portuguese, so that they can have their own grammar, dictionary etc. In other
words, we can see the language planning happening.
The aforementioned example of disagreement between Brazil and Portugal illustrates a
language politics of no co-participation, which is held up to present days. Those who hold a
CELPE-Bras’ certificate and intend to move to Portugal need to take the Portuguese test, and vice-
versa.
The new language politics involving the Portuguese language are very different from the
first ones. We go from diversity (many languages) to unity (Portuguese language), and now a
diversity within unity. The existence of this many Portuguese languages are essential to the
configuration of a new geopolitics of language. Nevertheless, the dichotomy Brazil/Portugal is still
strong enough to write the rules for this linguistic game. Hope for a different way of playing relies

6
For the purposes of this paper, I chose to talk about one only.
7
Due to the length of this paper, it is not possible to provide an overview of proficiency in
academic works. However, it can be found in Lado (1961), Hymes (1972), Cummins (1979), Stern
(1983), Farhady (1983), Thomas (1994), Hawkey and Barker (2004), Kennedy and Thorp (2007).
on the African countries that speak Portuguese. Perhaps this force would be strong enough to make
the Portuguese language a red blood cell, an anucleate cell.

REFERENCES:

BARROS, João de. Grammatica da lingva portvgvesa. Reprodução fac-similada. In: Buescu,
Maria L. (1971). Gramática da língua portuguesa. Cartinha, gramática, diálogo em louvor da
nossa linguagem e diálogo da viciosa vergonha. Lisboa: Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de
Lisboa. (1971[1540])
BOURDIEU, P. The forms of capital Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of
education (pp. 241–258). R.(1974). The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York,
1986.
BRASIL. Certificado de Proficiência em Língua Portuguesa para Estrangeiros: Manual do
Candidato. Secretaria de Educação Superior (SESu). Brasília, MEC, 2015.
BRASIL. Certificado de Proficiência em Língua Portuguesa para Estrangeiros: Manual do
Aplicador. Secretaria de Educação Superior (SESu). Brasília: MEC, 2015.
CANAGARAJAH, A. Navigating language politics: a story of a critical praxis. In Nicolaides, N.
et al. Política e Políticas Linguísticas. Campinas: Pontes Editores, pages 43-61, 2013.
CANTARINO, Nelson. «O idioma nosso de cada dia (texto parcial)». Revista de História da
Biblioteca Nacional, ano 1, nº 8, fev/mar 2006.
CASTRO, Ivo. Curso de História da Língua Portuguesa, Lisboa, Universidade Aberta, 1991.
CUMMINS, J. Language proficiency and academic achievement. In Oller, J.W. (ed). Issues in
language testing research, Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pages 108-129, 1979.
DELL’ISOLA et. Al. A avaliação de proficiência em português língua estrangeira: o exame
CELPE-Bras. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, v.3, n.1, pages 153-164, 2003.
DINIZ, Leandro Rodrigues Alves. Políticas uni/bi/multilaterais de certificação de proficiência em
português: uma análise do certificado de proficiência em língua portuguesa para estrangeiros
(Celpe-Bras). In: DELL’ISOLA, Regina Lúcia Péret (Org.). O exame de proficiência Celpe-Bras
em foco. Campinas: Pontes Editores, Pages15-36, 2014.
FARHADY, H. On the plausibility of the unitary language proficiency factor. Issues in language
testing research, 11-28, 1983.
GADET, F. and Pêcheux, M. A língua inatingível. O discurso na história da linguística. Campinas:
Pontes, 2004.
GARCEZ, P. Observatório de políticas linguísticas no Brasil: metas para a Linguística Aplicada.
In Nicolaides, N. et al. Política e Políticas Linguísticas. Campinas: Pontes Editores, 2013.
HAUGEN, E. Language planning in modern Norway. Scandinavian Studies, Denmark, v.33, n.2,
Pages 68-81, 1961.
HAWKEY, R. and F. Barker. ‘Developing a common scale for the assessment of writing,’
Assessing Writing 9/2: 122–59, 2004.
HOBSBAWM, E. J., & Kertzer, D. J. Ethnicity and nationalism in Europe today. Anthropology
today, 8(1), 3-8, 1992.
HYMES, D. On communicative competence. sociolinguistics, 269293, 269-293, 1972.
KENNEDY, C. and D. Thorp. ‘A corpus investigation of linguistic responses to an IELTS academic
writing task’ in L. Taylor and P. Falvey (eds): IELTS Collected Papers: Research in Speaking and
Writing Assessment (Studies in Language Testing 19). Cambridge University Press, Pages 316–
78, 2007.
LADO, R. Language testing. London, Longman, 1961.
MÜLLER, Martin. Reconsidering the concept of discourse for the field of critical geopolitics:
Towards discourse as language and practice, Political Geography, Volume 27, Issue 3, Pages 322-
338, 2008.
MATTOS E SILVA, Rosa Virgnínia. Estruturas trecentistas. Elementos para uma Gramática do
Português Arcaico. Lisbon, IN-CM, 1988.
MATTOSO, José. Ricos-homens, infanções e cavaleiros. Lisbon, Guimarães, 1982.
NEBRIJA, Antonio de. Gramática de la lengua castellana. Edición crítica de Antonio Quilis.
Madrid: Ediciones de Cultura Hispánica. Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana, ([1492]1992).
OLIVEIRA, F. Gramática da linguagem portuguesa. 2. ed. Lisboa: Biblioteca Nacional,
([1536]1988).
OLIVEIRA, Gilvan Muller de. Política Linguística, Política Historiográfica – Epistemologia e
escrita da História da(s) Língua(s) a propósito da língua portuguesa no Brasil Meridional.
(thesis). Instituto de Estudos da Linguagem, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 2004.
OLIVEIRA, Gilvan Müller de. Plurilinguismo no Brasil. Organização das Nações Unidas para a
Educação, a Ciência e a Cultura (UNESCO) e Instituto de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em
Política Lingüística (IPOL), Brasília, 2008. Disponível em
<http://www.lacult.unesco.org/docc/Plurilinguismo_no_Brasil.pdf >. Acesso em 2/11/2017
OLIVEIRA, Gilvan Müller de. O lugar das línguas.A América do Sul e os mercados linguísticos
na Nova Economia. Synergies Brésil n° spécial 1 – 2. Pages 21-30, 2013. Disponível em:
<http://gerflint.fr/Base/BresilSPECIAL1/gilvan.pdf>. Acesso em 2/11/2017
OLIVEIRA, Gilvan Müller de. Política linguística e internacionalização: a língua portuguesa no
mundo globalizado do século XXI. Trab. linguist. apl. [online]. vol.52, n.2, 2013. Disponível em
<http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-18132013000200010>.
Pages 409-433. Acesso em 2/11/2017
OLIVEIRA, Gilvan Müller de. (2016). Políticas Linguísticas: uma entrevista com Gilvan Müller
de Oliveira. ReVEL, v. 14, n. 26, 2016. Disponível em:
<http://www.revel.inf.br/files/e92f933a3b0ca404b70a1698852e4ebd.pdf>. Acesso em 2/11/2017.
OLIVEIRA, Gilvan Müller de. (1999). O que quer a lingüística e o que se quer da lingüística - a
delicada questão da assessoria lingüística no movimento indígena. Cad. CEDES, Dez 1999, vol.19,
no.49, p.26-38. ISSN 0101-3262. Disponível em:
<http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ccedes/v19n49/a04v1949.pdf> . Acesso em 2/11/2017
PAYER, M. O. Processos de identificação sujeito / língua. Ensino, língua nacional e língua
materna. In: ORLANDI, E. P. (Org.). Política linguística no Brasil. Campinas: Pontes, pages113-
123, 2007.
PENNYCOOK, A. D. Language-free linguistics and linguistics-free languages. Questioning
linguistics, 2008.
PORTUGAL. CAPLE. Retrieved from: http://caple.letras.ulisboa.pt/ Access in mai 2018.
RAJAGOPALAN, K. The Role of Geopolitics in Language Planning and Language Politics in
Brazil. Current Issues in Language Planning, 9:2, Pages179-192, 2008.
RAJAGOPALAN, K. Política linguística: do que é que se trata, afinal. Nicolaides, N. et al. Política
e Políticas Linguísticas. Campinas: Pontes Editores, 2013.
RIBEIRO, Orlando. Portugal, o Mediterrâneo e o Atlântico Lisbon, ICALP, 1947.
RIBEIRO, Orlando. A formação de Portugual. Lisbon, Sá da Costa, 1987.
SCARAMUCCI, M. V. Avaliação: mecanismo propulsor de mudanças no ensino/aprendizagem de
língua estrangeira. Revista Contexturas. São Paulo, APLIESP, 75-81, 1999.
SCARAMUCCI, M. V. R. O projeto Celpe-Bras no âmbito do Mercosul: contribuições para uma
definição de proficiência comunicativa. ALMEIDA FILHO, JCP Português para Estrangeiros:
interface com o espanhol. Campinas: Pontes, 77-90, 1995.
SILVA NETO, Serafim da. (1952). História da língua portuguesa. Rio de Janeiro, Presença.
Silverstein, M. Language structure and linguistic ideology. The elements: A parasession on
linguistic units and levels, 193-247, 1979.
STERN, H. H. Fundamental concepts of language teaching: Historical and interdisciplinary
perspectives on applied linguistic research. Oxford University Press, 1983.
TEYSSIER, Paul. História da língua portuguesa. Lisbon, Sá da Costa, 1980.
THOMAS, M. ‘Assessment of L2 proficiency in second language acquisition research,’ Language
Learning 44/2: 307–36, 1994.
WARTBURG, Walther von. La fragmentación linguística de la Romania. Madrid, Gredos, 1950.