Foreign languages

In addition to mother tongues, the analysis of foreign language skills among participants revealed further trends of this large-scale diversity that was so characteristic of the Geneva sample. On the whole, 345 (92%) students reported skills in at least one foreign language. In total, 34 foreign languages were mentioned by respondents, from Amharic to Hungarian to Tagalog. When asked about the languages they studied, additional answers included sign languages and Elven, as well as Ancient Greek and Esperanto. The full list of these languages, which participants spoke or were in the process of learning (their distinction), can be found in

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Law (n=94) Medicine (n=64) Science (n=150) SES (n=60) Total (n=368) French German Italian English Other

Figure 4.5 Responses per mother tongue, compared by faculty

Figure 4.6 Number of responses per foreign language, grouped by mother tongue

Appendix 3, while Figures 4.6 and 4.7 below provide a summary of the results as regards the different first and second language combinations.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

French L2 German L2 Italian L2 English L2 Other L2

French L1 German L1 Italian L1 English L1 Other L1 0

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

French L1 German L1 Italian L1 English L1 Other L1

French L2 German L2 Italian L2 English L2 Other L2 Figure 4.6 Number of responses per foreign language, grouped by mother tongue

Figure 4.7 Number of responses per mother tongues, grouped by L2 proficiency

Based on these figures, it seems that English was the most popular foreign language in the list, spoken by 311 participants. However, the fact that only 84 students chose French as one of their L2s is not surprising as all students had some form of proficiency French, and most listed it among their mother tongues. As a foreign language, it was most frequent among L1 speakers of Other languages (N = 53), while German as an L2 was mostly spoken by French mother tongue students (N = 129). Participants who spoke Italian as a mother tongue, on the other hand, reported English (N = 20) more frequently than in French (N = 14) as part of their L2 portfolio. These differences hint at important tendencies that underline the role of linguistic diversity and competence in Swiss official languages in the Geneva context. So as to address the question of their significance, these will be further examined in Section 4.3.4.

It is clear that the numbers in the above figures are to be interpreted with caution, since most participants reported skills in more than a single foreign language. In addition, there were further discrepancies due to participants’ answers to the different questions about their foreign languages. Interestingly, some marked a language as currently studied but not spoken, while others listed some of their languages in both categories. Thus, as can be seen in Table 4.1, the totals do not always correspond to the number of students who had any competence in the language and the percentages presented in this section are best treated as proportions relative to the same category. Although these anomalies raise intriguing questions regarding foreign language speakers’ perceptions of their own competence, a more in-depth analysis would point beyond the goals and scope of this dissertation.

Table 4.1 Number of responses for the items on foreign language proficiency and learning

Language Spoken as an L2 Studied as an L2

German 154 53

French 84 9

Italian 59 20

English 311 63

Other 103 67

Nonetheless, the numbers in Table 4.1 are interesting because, apart from the evident popularity of English, a language that most European countries introduce at some level of primary or secondary education, the also showcase the importance of German, Italian and other languages. They also indicate that a great proportion of UNIGE students pursue their language learning goals in a variety of languages by dedicating time and effort to develop their skills.

This lends further weight to participants’ claims in the final section of the questionnaire that

invited respondents to voice their opinions concerning the topic of the questionnaire. Several comments stressed the fact that foreign language skills are useful, if not recommended or even required, for their studies, however, students found courses offered by the University lacking.

The number of L2s spoken by members of different L1 groups, as displayed in Table 4.2, showed similarly revealing trends. The number of students who spoke only one or no foreign language was highest among mother-tongue speakers of French, which is easily explained by the French-speaking context of the study. Not only did this group include the majority of participants, French L1 speakers also represent the majority of the population of the University, as well as the city, canton and region. Accordingly, most monolinguals and respondents with the fewest L1s and L2s belonged to this subsample.

Table 4.2 Participants per mother tongue and number of foreign languages spoken

L1 No L2 1 L2 2 L2s 3 L2s 4 L2s

French 30 94 107 55 5

German 1 5 6 12 1

Italian 2 7 8 5 3

English 3 9 6 3 0

Other 3 24 40 25 6

Moreover, Table 4.3 βsheds light on the different L2 combinations present in the sample. The fact that most students spoke multiple foreign languages accounts for the total of responses exceeding the number of participants. The most frequent combination in the sample was German and English (N = 142), followed by English and a language in the category other (N

= 89). Nevertheless, French and English (N = 71) and Italian and English (N = 51) as well as German and an Other language (N = 49) were also popular responses. Once more, this shows that Swiss national languages were important components of participants’ L2 profile and that they often complemented English as well as other languages.

Table 4.3 Number of participants per foreign language combination

L2 French L2 German L2 Italian L2 English L2 Other L2

French L2 - 25 11 71 27

German L2 - - 20 142 49

Italian L2 - - - 51 17

English L2 - - - - 89

Only 1 L2 6 6 5 76 7

L2 French L2 German L2 Italian L2 English L2 Other L2

Number of L2 speakers 84 154 59 311 103

Regarding the differences between gender groups, Figure 4.8 illustrates the similar distribution of foreign languages in both subsamples. It is worth noting, however, that English skills are slightly overrepresented in the group of male students, diminishing the proportions of the rest of the options. For the same reasons as mentioned above, the total number of responses does not correspond to the number of students in the sample, as both male and female participants

spoke on average 1.9 foreign languages and thus many of them appeared in multiple groupings.

Applying the same comparison to the groups of Swiss as opposed to foreign students (cf. Figure 4.9), the differences are marked. German and Italian were popular among participants who had

25

French L2 German L2 Italian L2 English L2 Other L2

44

French L2 German L2 Italian L2 English L2 Other L2 Figure 4.9 Participants per foreign language, compared by gender

Figure 4.8 Participants per foreign language, compared by place of secondary education

completed their secondary education in Switzerland, which might reflect language education policies in the country. By contrast, both groups had a similar number of French L2 speakers.

Allowing for the relative size of the two groups, it can be concluded that French as a foreign language was twice as popular with foreign students as with the Swiss, which is understandable given that most participants in the Swiss subsample came from the French-speaking part of the country and were therefore often native speakers of French. Indeed, as I show in Section 4.3.4, confirmatory t-tests found the differences in the popularity of French and English to be significant.

As regards the different faculties, Figure 4.10 shows that French as a foreign language was the most popular among law students, 34% of whom marked the option. In terms of German L2 skills, respondents at the Faculty of Medicine (46.9%) surpassed even their counterparts at Law (41.5%) and SES (40%). Italian was frequently reported as an L2 at the latter (20%), slightly exceeded by medical students only (20.3%). Participants at the Faculty of SES also often declared English as one of their foreign languages (91.7%), followed by students of the sciences (84.7%). However, it needs to be pointed out that low representation rates from the former (N = 60) might influence the results, while the Faculty of Science (N = 150) yielded the largest subsample in the study. Participants from SES also spoke other languages in the greatest number (35%), with the Faculty of Law a close second (33%) a close second.

Figure 4.10 Participants per foreign language, compared by faculty

The level of instruction at which students were enrolled did not prove to be an important factor in their L2 profiles. This comparison showed steady trends of English being the most popular

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Law Medicine Science SES

French L2 German L2 Italian L2 English L2 Other L2

option in all subsamples, followed by German with about half as many responses. Similarly, students who were already professionally active at the time of enquiry reported French as one of their foreign languages only slightly less frequently than their non-working counterparts. On the other hand, they also testified to a somewhat higher proportion of German L2 skills.

Speakers’ reported level of proficiency in the foreign languages they spoke or studied showed interesting differences among the languages in question. The number of responses in each category for the four languages included in the questionnaire are displayed in Table 4.4. These included students who marked the language in question among their spoken L2s and also those who reported studying it. A cursory glance reveals that once more German and Italian differ considerably from French and English.

Table 4.4 Number of responses per level

L2 Level (scale option) German French Italian English

A1 (1) 29 1 17 7

As Figure 4.11 illustrates, the distribution of speakers in the case of German and Italian tilted toward proficiency levels in the middle of the scale. Conversely, speakers of French and English situated themselves more at the higher end of the spectrum. The mean values in Table 4.4 also reflect this difference, as those for German and Italian were closer to the B1 level

Figure 4.11 Foreign language levels. Number of responses per level. Full sample

required to pass secondary school leaving exams in Geneva at the time of the study, while French and English L2 speakers rated their competence at C1 and B2 on average respectively.

In light of the above observations, the question arises whether these trends can be viewed as a particular feature of the Swiss context. Therefore, below I explore this aspects of the data by comparing the answers of students who had completed their secondary education abroad with those of their peers who had done so abroad. The first language to which I apply this lens is German, and the results, displayed in Figure 4.12, show considerable differences. Not only were L2 speakers of German more numerous among Swiss participants, they also rated their skills higher in greater proportion. As regards the number of responses, I would like to point out that the group of Swiss students (N = 256) was much larger than that of foreigners (N = 119), which needs to be taken into account during the interpretation of the figures.

Nonetheless, this pattern seemed to occur not only in the case of German but also with Italian (cf. Figure 4.13) and, to a lesser extent, French (Figure 4.14). Interestingly, the proportions of the different levels among English speakers, shown in Figure 4.15, were not strikingly dissimilar. All in all, these results suggest that Swiss students reported higher levels of skills in the languages included than their foreign counterparts, which might reflect the effects of Swiss language education. In order to examine the significance these observations, the differences

11

Figure 4.12 German as a foreign language levels per place of secondary education. Number of responses per level

between the two subsamples were submitted to further testing, the results of which are discussed in the following sections.

Figure 4.14 French as a foreign language levels per place of secondary education. Number of responses per level.

Figure 4.15 English as a foreign language levels per place of secondary education. Number of responses per level 7

Figure 4.13 Italian as a foreign language levels per place of secondary education. Number of responses per level

Finally, L2 levels at the four faculties were surprisingly even. Table 4.5 shows that the greatest difference was observed between L2 speakers of French at the faculties of Medicine and Science. However, the low number of speakers of French as a foreign language among the former indicates that this disparity is hardly of significance in the statistical sense. These findings are especially interesting since they indicate that students preparing for their careers in different professional sectors are similarly geared as regards their foreign language skills.

Nevertheless, the varying number of speakers at the four faculties slightly mitigates these assumptions.

Table 4.5 Average L2 levels at the four faculties. 1-6, L2 speakers and learners only. Mean, number of responses and standard deviation

Faculty German French Italian English

M N SD M N SD M N SD M N SD

Law 3.07 55 1.45 5.50 32 1.02 2.59 17 1.42 4.69 74 1.17

Medicine 3.30 33 1.16 5.86 7 0.38 3.00 16 1.41 4.45 53 0.99

Science 2.86 65 1.33 4.72 29 1.33 2.72 25 1.40 4.17 133 1.34

SES 3.12 26 1.24 5.00 15 0.85 2.92 12 1.38 4.34 56 1.16

Total 3.04 179 1.33 5.17 83 1.14 2.79 70 1.38 4.37 316 1.23

By contrast, Table 4.6 below displays the overall language levels, including native speakers, who were assigned the level 7, and non-speakers, who represented the category 0. Indeed, these comparisons revealed that, all students considered, French language levels were lowest at SES, however, the differences were negligible. They were more marked in the case of German, in which SES students scored the highest at 2.63 (B2), while the overall level of participants from the Faculty of Science reached only 1.43 (A1). The latter also reported the lowest levels of competence in English, corresponding to a B2 classification as opposed to the highest mean value, that of a C1 at the Faculty of Law. Average levels of Italian skills were around the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001) mark of A1, with small differences among the groups. These calculations take into account all participants, therefore, while they rely on categories that are less clear cut statistically, they are more indicative of the overall language levels of the individual subsamples.

Table 4.6 Average L2 levels at the four faculties. 0-7, all⁷ students. Mean, number of responses and standard deviation

Faculty German French Italian English

M N SD M N SD M N SD M N SD

Law 2.17 94 2.16 6.49 94 0.92 1.06 94 2.15 4.51 94 1.95

Medicine 2.03 64 2.13 6.88 64 0.38 0.86 64 1.67 4.23 64 1.78 Science 1.43 150 1.90 6.56 150 1.07 1.06 150 2.17 3.83 150 1.81

SES 2.63 60 2.65 6.5 60 0.97 0.93 60 1.92 4.17 60 1.52

Total 1.92 368 2.18 6.59 368 0.94 1.01 368 2.04 4.13 368 1.81