Mental maps of Europe: A fuzzy but consensus vision of Europe

The aim of the EuroBroadMap survey was to find out non-European points of view about Europe. However the last part of the questionnaire introduces some specific questions about Europe. The first one (Question D1) was based on an enlarged map of Europe where the students were asked to drawn the limits of Europe. The first part of this report presents the implementation of the survey and the methods used to analyse the mental maps gathered.

Then, the second part presents the results. It shows that students share a consensus but fuzzy mental representation of Europe.

Context and methods

Context

The European Union's enlargement process raises the problem of the definition of what is Europe, and of the definition of its spatial limits. The cartography of the mental representation of Europe has already been explored. In 2005, a survey has been made in the ESPON program, involving geographers and spatial planners (Didelon and Grasland, 2006[35], Didelon, 2010[33]). However, this survey provided a representation of Europe from a European point of view, and more, from a specific one because the public surveyed was implicated in a research program funded by the European Union: they were particularly aware of European subjects and the method used in the previous survey focuses the analysis on the country level. The aim of the method implemented in the EuroBroadMap project allows refining the cartographic representation, and then the analysis of the mental representation of Europe. Our approach is at the crossroads of methods and concepts of mental maps (Lynch, 1960[74]; Cauvin, 1997[25]; Gould and White, 1974[50]; FrÃľmont, 1976[44]; Moles and Rohmer, 1978[78]) with the aim of catching interpretations of Europe. The survey, done in various European and non-European countries, will allow of comparing the representation of Europe all over the world and to confront both perspectives in order to go beyond the Eurocentric perspective.

Psychologists were the first to focus on cognitive space, with the hypothesis that space is full of meanings and values. The latter are specific to each individual, but with collective studies, it is possible to sum up more or less shared characteristics. The expression "mental maps" covers different productions from the "cognitive-behaviourism" movement. This movement appeared in the 1970's in the United-States (Gold, 1992[49]), mixed the fields of perception and imagination and sought to analyse the links between representation and action (Lynch, 1960[74]; Gould and White, 1974[50]).

Our survey can be included in the "interpretative mental maps" category (Didelon et al., 2011[34]). This type of mental map is characterised by the instructions provided during the survey: one have to provide its appreciation or to define a phenomenon in space. In this situation, the researcher neither seeks to know how one draws a space, nor to determine its knowledge level, but rather how one defines a particular phenomenon in a space on a provided base map. Unlike conventional mental maps, the starting point of the analysis is not the individual (their knowledge or practice), but the space on which the analysis focuses that has to be think globally when doing the exercise.

The analysis of the map obtained is then easier, because the researcher can compare the "real" and "interpreted" spaces. Certainly, knowledge and affects have an influence on the realisation of the maps, but the drawing of a space on a map allows of eliminating partly them and going deeper in the analysis.

Precisions of the question in the survey

The students surveyed were asked to: "On the following map draw a line around Europe outlining its borders according to your opinion". A map was provided with the question (Figure 43). The instruction deliberately gave no precision about the meaning of "Europe". The aim was to discover what the students surveyed imagined in a spatial perspective when it comes to "Europe". Names of countries were added to the map, in order to help extra-European students to identify the countries, after a test phase to measure the possible effects of such a decision (see the report on the test phase, del 2.2).

After the data entry of text questions, all the questionnaires were sent to the lead partner of the project in order to digitalise the maps. The maps were scanned and then digitalised on ArcGis with ArcScan tool that allows following exactly the lines drawn by the students. Some students did not answer the question: it was filled in in many questionnaires but it happened that it was not possible to digitalise the maps. Some rules have been implemented during the test phase in order to apply the same procedure for each map.

When the question is filled in, it is possible to use the majority of the questionnaires without any hesitation in an analysis, because "Europe" is simply and clearly circled. A particular case of the circling configuration occurs when the Europe is partly drawn and the student partly used the borders of the map as a limit. But that configuration raises no problem for the digitalisation (Figure 44).

In some cases, there is also no problem, because it is unthinkable to analyse the map provided. More often, it is because there are short and unclosed lines, mainly on terrestrial space. The following maps illustrate the kinds of Europe map not included in the analysis (Figure 45). It was not The most difficult situation is the one where the person in charge of the digitalisation had to make a decision about what to digitalise. This was the case for about 10% of the maps of our sample. Figure 46 shows the different situations and the rules applied to each situation. In this table, the maps presented were collected during the test phase.

Using these rules, finally, about 16% of the maps have not been digitalised, but 7852 Europe maps have been gathered in order to be analysed. The percentage of maps digitalised reaches 100% in Portugal and has high figures in Malta, Turkey, China, and Hungary. It was relatively low in Cameroon, Azerbaijan, and India (less than 75%) (Figure 47).

All the "Europe" polygons have been gathered in one shape file by place of survey. The particularity of these interpretative mental map lies in the fact that the spatial objects which the respondents were asked to draw were deliberately left undefined. Resolving any uncertainty as to "Europe" is left to the own-capabilities of the observer to manage with information according to their own education, their own character, their own culture, their own history. . . More, they can have hesitations or doubts when facing the difficult exercise of drawing a mental map. Imprecision lies in how the "Europe" region is composed when the interpretative mental map is drawn. Indeed, the transition from individual maps towards a collective synthetic map is based on the assumption that, beyond the multiplicity of personal representations, some common mechanisms are expressed in knowledge and perception. Indeed, the respondent is a unique individual but is also socialised. This implies a relative consistency in the mental patterns of the sample. The transition from individual to collective is then made easier by the choice of interpretative maps: clear instructions and a basemap have been provided. However, if the individual representations are quite precise (limits are clearly drawn), the transition to the collective level always introduces imprecision. The map The lines are concentrated in some areas (the Straits of Gibraltar for example), but are more scattered in others, such as in the north of Great Britain or in Caucasia.

Results

In order to map and analyse the information gathered during the survey, we intersected the polygons tracing the lines of Europe with a grid covering all the space of the map. The size chosen for the squares were 50 km. This size allowed of getting enough information on small countries such as Malta and, at the same time, did not generate too many squares (which would have slown down the calculation). The principle was to count how many times a square of the grid is included in a Europe polygon. We can then map the extension of Europe for each country, for the entire sample. The aim is to catch the imprecision introduced by the collective level.

The global idea of "Europe", according to the students Figure 49 shows the frequency of inclusion in Europe of each square of the grid, for the entire sample. The modalities of the extension of Europe are quite different, depending on the direction. This map shows a clear gradient of inclusion-in-Europe that could be interpreted as a kind of gradient of "europeanity" (LÃľvy, 1997[69]). It covers mainly Western Europe and particularly the six founder states of the European Union (France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Italy), for which the inclusion frequency is 95%. It has then an extension toward the Iberian Peninsula and some countries from Central Europe (Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, and Slovenia). Then it weakens slightly to the west (Ireland and the UK), to the north (Scandinavia) and especially to the east, where many new EU members are in an intermediate situation (with an inclusion frequency between 60% and 80%). This configuration allows of observing a distinction between an inner circle and a more distant periphery, which strangely enough includes Greece at the same level as Bulgaria or Romania. The Russian Federation and Turkey-and this is consistent with the design of the outer limits (Figure 50)-are still less included in the vision that the students have of Europe, with a frequency level of inclusion between 20% and 40%. The extension of Europe as seen by the students has four main properties:

• The area of highest concentration (more than 95% of the respondents of inclusion) is very small and follows the boundaries of the countries. It covers only a few countries, which can be identified as the six founder member states of the European Union in 1957, plus Switzerland. Students generally consider the unity of each country, even if the history is not in agreement, especially for Germany;

• A very low frequency (less than 5% of the sample) of inclusion is found for the countries of the southern Mediterranean shore and the Arabian Peninsula. The border follows the southern border of these countries (see Algeria, Libya). Concerning this space, the level of discontinuity is very high between Southern Europe (Spain) and northern Morocco, confirming the importance of the Straits of Gibraltar's being perceived as a limit. The discontinuity is less strong with Turkey on the Dardanelles strait because the level of inclusion of Eastern Europe is low;

• The level of inclusion decreases regularly in two spaces: the Russian Federation and the Atlantic Ocean. In those spaces, the decreasing level of inclusion is not due to this border but to a fuzzy delimitation of Europe more linked to the graphic form often use to draw the limits of Europe: a large circle. The different size of this circle can be very well observed in the Atlantic Ocean;

• An area appears as very much included in Europe. This area matches with the picture of the European Union before the 2004 enlargement as it does not include the countries that belonged to the area of the Soviet Union. Yet, the "Iron curtain" seems quite present as there is a strong discontinuity between Germany, Austria, and Italy on the one hand, and Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Slovenia on the other hand. This pre-2004 vision of Europe is tempered by the discontinuity with Greece that was a member of the EU since the 80s. This interpretation is also tempered by the case of Switzerland that is among the countries the most included within the limits of Europe and that is not a member of the EU and not even a candidate. The hypothesis in this case in that a principle of contiguity was applied in the drawing. Three EU founder countries have a common border with Switzerland: Italy, France, and Germany. The case of the UK is also particular because of the discontinuity in the inclusion. It is due to the exclusion of the UK in many cases, mainly by Indian students, because they follow the main coast lines and forgot all the islands in many cases.

In conclusion, the conflation between Europe and the European Union seems strong when students are asked to draw the limits of Europe and the degrees of inclusion in Europe are strongly correlated with the dates of entry of countries into the European Union as member countries. This observation is partly confirmed by Figure 51. The non-EU members show very low figures (about 20%). However, the variance in this category is very high and can be explained by the variation of the distance from the European Union founder members. The frequency of inclusion is high for all other categories (more than 80%) but does not follow strictly the membership diffusion: for example the EU candidate countries are more included than the countries from the 2004 enlargement. One reason is possibly the distance of some countries from the heart of the European Union together with their peripheral position and their relatively small size. This is mainly the case with Cyprus and Malta, but also the Baltic countries. The six founder countries of the European Union show the highest inclusion level, close to 100%14 . This part focuses on the variation of the drawing of Europe according to the country where the survey took place. The maps presented here show the differences between each country surveyed and the entire EuroBroadMap sample. The representations of inclusion-in-Europe are presented in a perspective of comparison between the students in the member States included in the European Union, the students in the neighbouring countries, and the students in remote countries. However, the first striking observation one Figure 52: Correlation of countries surveyed could make is that the mental representation of Europe seems to enjoy a firm consensus. Indeed, a correlation matrix displaying the correlation indices measuring the relation between all the countries of the sample shows very high positive values between all countries (Figure 52). The figures are the same when the correlations are calculated on the country level of inclusion and on the squares of the grid level of inclusion. Even the minimum and maximum value of correlation are observed between the same countries.

The strongest correlation can be observed between Belgium and France. Figure 53 shows that students in both countries have roughly the same behaviour. However, this does not imply an always perfect correlation between the countries. The lowest correlation (however very high) can be observed between Sweden and India. Figure 54 shows that the students in both countries show the same pattern of inclusion in and exclusion from Europe for a large number of countries. However, for a certain group of countries, the students from India and Sweden show different inclusion levels. Indian students include more often Mongolia (+16 points), Kazakhstan (+12) and China (+11) in Europe, while Swedish students include more often Iceland (+74), Malta (+57), Cyprus (+55), Ireland (+35), Morocco (+35), and the United Kingdom (+32). This observation confirms that even if the drawing of Europe is very consensus, some real differences exist and it is worth while to analyse them.

In the following maps (Figures 55,56,and 57), the red squares show the places more frequently quoted by the students of the surveyed countries, in blue the contrary. Some European countries are often shown in yellow. This means that the students of the analysed country merely agree with the rest of the sample. This means that if students of this country often included France in the limits of Europe, such is also the case for the rest of the sample. Some countries in the east and the south of the map appear

European Union countries

The European Union countries maps have generally the same configuration with more and less intensity. Generally, the European Union students differ from the rest of the sample, in two areas. The rest of the students surveyed included more of the Eastern countries, in particular, Russia, than did the European Union students. The border follows the southern border of the countries (see Algeria, Libya). Concerning this space, the level of discontinuity is very high between Southern Europe (Spain) and northern Morocco, confirming the importance of the Straits of Gibraltar perceived, as a limit.

As far as the European Union students are concerned, we observe that the Atlantic side of Europe, Scandinavia, Baltic countries, the Mediterranean Islands, and the Northern part of the Mediterranean Sea are much more quoted than by the entire sample. This figure could be explained by the fact that these students did not often follow the coast in their drawing, but included large parts of water in a circle, when the western part is concerned. Concerning the countries, these students seem to include more Nordic countries, Ireland and the UK, Spain and Portugal, and very much more often Iceland and Malta. European peninsulas are not forgotten, even more if they belong to the European Union (Iberia and the Greek peninsula) neither are European islands. In addition, Iceland is more considered as belonging to Europe by the European Union samples than by the whole sample. The students generally included the EU members Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. For example, the UK, which is a country positively perceived by the European Union students, but which unlike other European countries, is not as emphatically included within the limits of Europe. This may suggest that the identification of European countries may be linked to the presence of a common currency to which the UK does not subscribe and possibly also to certain common laws in the whole of the EU which take a different form in the UK.

On the other hand, large parts of the southern Mediterranean Sea and a large part of Russia are less quoted. The European Union students are more eager to follow the western border of Russia in drawing the limits of Europe and then include less often this part of the map, maybe for the reasons pointed to before. A tendency, which can be observed in a few country samples (Romania, Portugal, Hungary, and Sweden), is clearly the drawing of Europe towards the east, more than the whole sample. The students interviewed have a larger vision about the extension of Europe to the east and southeast, including the new EU member states, as well as the rest of the Balkans.

Another characteristic is represented by the Swedish and Hungarian students. They extended Europe to the northwest Atlantic region, especially in connection with Iceland, which was alluded to as part of Europe by these students more often than average.

Turkey is represented in an ambiguous way by the students of the European Union countries. On the one hand, the Maltese and Swedish students, and to a lesser extent the Romanian, integrated clearly Turkey within the limits of Europe. The Belgian, French, and Hungarian students integrated Turkey less often than did the whole sample. In the case of France, politics and the media explain this kind of result because they often present the inconveniences of the entry of Turkey into the European Union. There is considerable debate about the EU expansion and, in some countries, a significant opposition to include this country as a member state. Another particularity concerns the French students: they include very much less of the northern part of the map, including Greenland. They seem not to perceive the political importance of the Arctic Sea in the perspective of global warming for the European Union.

Finally, the Maltese and Swedish students tend to represent strongly their countries and the close space inside Europe. However, the largest difference is seen in the perception of Malta itself. Maltese students emphasised the position of Malta in Europe, a perception which is not congruent with the perceptions of students in the whole sample. The geopolitical ambiguity of Malta's position on the border of Europe and Africa is reflected in the ambiguous perception of Malta in Europe and further emphasises the notion of the Maltese as "ambivalent Europeans". According to the map, Swedish students are much more likely to include northern countries in Europe. This is particularly evident in Iceland's case, where the inclusion rate was more than 46.8% higher than the overall total. This trend also extends to Greenland, where the inclusion rate was 25% higher than average. This is particularly evident in the north, which is unsurprising considering their geographic proximity to the region.

Southern and eastern neighbours

The southern and eastern neighbours' maps present generally three kinds of configuration with more and less intensity. The vision of the students creates spaces where the membership in Europe is much more ambiguous.

The first configuration is represented by the Turkish students. Countries (in yellow) such as Italy, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany, are included at nearly the same rate as by the Eurobroadmap sample students. Iceland and the northern coast of Norway are less considered to be in Europe by the Turkish students than by the whole sample. The eastern lands of Turkey are more often included in Europe by the Turkish students than by the Eurobroadmap sample. This means that some of the Turkish students evaluated Turkey as a whole, while the sample of Eurobroadmap divides Turkey into two parts: one being European, the other Asiatic. The rareness of the number of countries in dark colour indicates that the Turkish students have nearly same vision as the sample of Eurobroadmap. Also, at the eastern and northern borderlines, the level of difference between Turkey and Eurobroadmap increases.

The second configuration, represented by the Moldavian students, is more neutral. The small differences do not necessarily mean a unity of the perceptions. The nature of the European vision of Moldavian students, close to the average of all students interviewed, can be explained more by the position in between spaces of the country and less by other parameters that can be taken into consideration (distance, ideology, spatial practice). The relatively lower knowledge about the Atlantic and Mediterranean peripheries (with the exception of Ireland and the UK) is explained by the symbolic construction of the European space, focalised on the economical, cultural, and political heart of the continent (Western Europe). Eastern "peripherals" (Ukraine and the Russian Federation), less present in "the Moldavian Europe", could indicate a pro-European attitude of the students, which would explain the slight over-representation of some of the new member states (the Baltic ones, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania) and of the western Balkans.

The third configuration was drawn by the Tunisian, Egyptian, and Azerbaijani students. Europe is smaller in the high level of inclusion and larger in the low levels of inclusion. The area where these students match the rest of the sample is small concerning European countries. It is clearly limited to two or six European Union member states (France and a part of Spain). On the other hand, North African countries are very much more included in Europe and more particularly Tunisia, Turkey, the Arabian Peninsula, Central Asia, but also Algeria and Morocco. The eastern and western parts of the maps are also more included in Europe compared to the rest of the sample, showing perhaps a particularity of drawing limits in the Tunisian and Azerbaijani samples: it is possible that a significant number of students used the limits of the map to draw the limits of Europe. In the south, below the southern border of the North African countries, these samples match again the rest of the sample with a low level of inclusion in Europe, except for the Azerbaijani students.

In all other parts of Europe, and mainly in Northern Europe, these three samples are quite different from the EuroBroadMap sample: students include much less the eastern countries and more the northern ones. A difference exists for the Azerbaijani students: they excluded Iceland, Northern Europe, and the Russian Federation.

Remote countries

The remote countries' maps present different visions, independently of the locality of the countries, more or less close to Europe.

The first group (Russia and India) has a reduced visualisation of the limits of Europe. In this regard, it is seen that the Indian and Russian students see Western Europe as the crucial part of Europe, in other words as the heart of Europe. Ireland and the UK are less often shown as European than by all students. The Russian and Indian respondents have a tendency to delimit Europe on the east along the eastern boundaries of the Baltic countries, Belarus, and Ukraine. Interestingly, the same share of students in other countries as in Russia sees Ukraine as a European country. All former socialist countries, the Balkans, the Baltic countries, and the northern countries (Scandinavia), are shown by these students within the limits of Europe with the same frequency as by the other respondents. Finally, the Russian and Indian students neglect more often than the others the maritime boundaries and islands belonging to large European countries.

The second group contains the Brazilian, Chinese, and Senegalese students, which have drawn a larger European space than the rest of the students, with more and less intensity. They did not often follow the coast in their drawing, but included part of the water in a circle. These students match the rest of the sample in two different perspectives. First, concerning the European countries in yellow, these students agree with the rest of the sample. Outside Europe, the large yellow area marks the space for which the students agree with the rest of the sample: this space is, in all countries surveyed, not included in Europe.

As can be seen in the above map, the perception which Brazilian students have of the limits and extension of Europe is very similar to that of the whole sample, with few exceptions. The exceptions are very simple to describe and analyse: they appear on the map as two perfectly continuous blocks. The positive exceptions form an almost unbroken circle around Europe. The "gains" for Europe are however small, as the area concerned is mainly sea, the lines have been drawn including wide expanses of water and include only a few countries, some of which being not EU members (Iceland, Norway, part of Russia) but also Malta, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, which are part of it. The map of the Senegalese students even tends to a bigger extension of Europe. This area concerns the Mediterranean Basin countries, and the western coast of the Atlantic Ocean. The Senegalese students consider that the Mediterranean countries belong to Europe, particularly Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Turkey, and the Mediterranean islands. Senegalese students seem to include Greenland and very much more Russia. The explanation of this Russian extension is the reflection of the school education in Africa where Russia is always joined to Europe.

As expected, for the Chinese students, Europe is more extended to the north, east, and southeast, including Greenland, the new EU member states, as well as the rest of the Balkans. They are more willing to put Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Sardinia, Corsica, and Turkey within the European domain than are the students in other countries. Negative exceptions are much more limited, they relate only to Turkey and Cyprus for the Brazilian students and Iceland for the Senegalese students.

The third case, Cameroon, is more of a contrast to the others. The vision Figure 57: Differences between "remote" countries and the entire sample of Europe of the Cameroonian students differs from that of all the students mainly by an over-insertion of Eastern Europe. Last but not least, if the position inside the hinterland influences somehow the students' vision of the inclusion or not of countries in Europe, it has no real effect on the perception of the sub-Saharan countries. The opinions of Cameroonian students are quite the same as those of the students of the whole sample. At this level of comparison, the map in this aspect shows also the existence of a noticeable sub-inclusion of the underdeveloped Arabic countries of the Middle East, the landlocked African countries such as Western Sahara, Niger, Mali, Sudan, all of which are frequently the theatres of a renewal of religious and sociopolitical troubles.

Global variation in the drawing of Europe

In order to check how the vision of Europe varies according to the country of survey, an ascending hierarchical classification was made on the frequencies of inclusion of the pixels of the grid to realise a global typology. The map presents seven major groups. The majority of them differentiate countries according to the intensity of the inclusion of countries in Europe. The inclusion average level in those classes increases regularly. However, this global trend hides some slight differences inside the class that will be analysed here. Two classes are particular: they characterised places where an opposition between the countries of the survey in the inclusion pattern can be observed between students (Figure 58).

Figure 58: Typology of inclusion in Europe

Class one represents all the squares of the grid excluded from the limits of Europe with three main orientations: towards the west, the south, and the east. The frequencies of inclusion are generally low but the average levels of inclusion by French and Belgium students are particularly low (they nearly never include the southern shore of the Mediterranean Sea: 0.7%), while the average frequency of inclusion of Tunisian student is highest (6.5%).

In class two, the average level of inclusion rises but it is still not very high (14%). This class has a vision contrasted between the countries of the sample with an opposition between Swedish, Chinese, and Hungarian students who tend to include more those countries in Europe, and the rest of the sample who tend to include it less. This space covers a large part of the Atlantic Ocean and covers Greenland and the north of the map. It exhibits two main trends. The first one is the already noticed behaviour of Swedish and Hungarian students to very often include the northern part of the map. The second one is more linked to the way of drawing of Chinese students who generally traced a large circle including both land and sea.

Class three, with an average level of inclusion of 19%, marks an interesting difference about the membership of Russia in Europe. The students of the countries which are non-members of the European Union (especially African students) more often include the Russian space in Europe. But the students of the European countries and the neighbouring countries (which are cooperating with the EU) have included less often this space in Europe.

Other classes group the squares of the grid which are included in Europe, with a progressive increase of the intensity of the average frequencies of inclusion in Europe between the fourth (36%) and the seventh class (88%). Some light trends regarding the countries behaviours can be observed in those classes. For example, class four covers a large part of Turkey, the Russia Federation, and Georgia. The students from Belgium, France, and Turkey less often include this space in Europe than the other students of the EuroBroadMap sample. Classes 5 and 6 mainly stress a gradation in the inclusion of the Atlantic Ocean. The Indian students tend to exclude more often this space than the other students from the sample because most of them draw the limit of Europe following the coast lines. The Swedish and Chinese students tend to include it more than the rest of the sample, and for class 6, the Portuguese students also tend to include a part of the Atlantic Ocean.

This analysis can also been conducted in more detail: on the places of survey rather than on the countries. In this case, the analysis has been conducted on the inclusion level of countries rather than on the grid. The figure obtained is quite similar (Figure 59) with an opposition between the countries the most included (blue) and those least included (yellow). The main factor of differentiation between the classes is the frequency of inclusion of countries in Europe. On this map, the Europe drawn by students seems What is most interesting in this analysis is to observe how the places of survey show similar trends or not when building those maps. This allows checking whether we can observe a country effect (the places of survey from a same country would be gathered in the same class), and if some groups emerge in the drawing of Europe. The figure of inclusion according to places of survey within the classes from the previous analysis is quite coherent and the variations of trends observed between places of survey within the class are not very important. This confirms the fact that the drawing of Europe enjoys a firm consensus.

However, in order to deepen the analysis, we can make a complementary one trying to directly classify the places of survey according to how they include the countries proposed on the map in Europe. A first exploration by building a correlation matrix confirmed that even when observed at the place of survey, the students possess quite a consensus in the drawing of Europe, because the correlations indicators values are quite high: the minimum value is observed between Chennai in India and Stockholm in Sweden, but the value is still high (+0.941).

A typology conducted on places of survey (the variables describe the inclusion level of countries in Europe) grouped the places of survey according A first class (in pink, Figure 60) gathers some interface countries between Europe and the rest of the world or peripheral ones: Egypt, Sweden, Azerbaijan, Tunisia, but also Buea (Cameroon). Those places are also characterised by a relatively small sample. Indeed, this could be the main cause of the building of this class: the main trend observed in this class is the relatively low level of inclusion of the European Union countries and countries of Eastern Europe in the drawing of Europe. However the students of those places are also characterised by the relatively high level of inclusion of interface or peripheral countries toward the southeastern part of the Mediterranean Sea: Egypt, Lebanon, Libya.

A second class (in green, Figure 60) gathers all Indian cities and Erzurum (Turkey). In those places, the samples conform more to the objectives and show a relatively low level of inclusion of countries of Northern Europe (Finland, Norway, Sweden) and more of a very low level of inclusion of European island such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, Malta, and Iceland. This stresses the particular trend observed mainly with Indian students to draw the limits of Europe following the coast lines, excluding de facto many islands. These places of survey are also characterised by a relatively high level of inclusion of Middle East countries (Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Saudi Ara-bia) and Central Asian countries within the limits of Europe (Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan). This trend has been particularly observed with the Erzurum students who tend to include their city in Europe and the countries neighbouring Turkey.

The following classes (grey and orange in Figure 60) show small differences from the entire sample. Both show however a similar trend to drawn a relatively small Europe.

The grey class gathers mainly all "old European Union" countries: all the places of survey in France, Belgium and Portugal. It also included Budapest (Hungary) and Porto Alegre (Brazil), the most "European" of the Brazilian cities of our sample. The grey class is characterised by a really "European Union" vision of Europe as none of the island countries belonging to the UE are forgotten, and therefore are more included than in the other places of survey: Malta, Ireland, and Cyprus. This trend leads also to the fact they draw a relatively smaller Europe than other places of survey: as the countries of North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia are relatively less included in Europe.

The orange class gathers all the Russian places of survey, two Turkish cities (Izmir and Istanbul), plus Fortaleza in Brazil. We could suggest that these places of survey belong to former neighbouring empires of Europe. They share with the previous class a relatively small vision of Europe, and even a smaller one: they are characterised by the low level of inclusion of Mediterranean islands (Cyprus, Malta) and North African countries (Morocco, Tunisia), but also the low level of inclusion of Balkan countries such as Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia, and Greece, and Eastern European countries (Hungary, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Moldova, Ukraine). Indeed, the students from those places of survey tend not to include in Europe the countries that formerly belonged to the same geographical space: the Soviet Union and the Ottoman Empire.

The last two classes are characterised by relatively higher level of inclusion of some countries, i.e., the students from these places tend to draw a larger Europe.

The brown class gathers all African places of survey in Senegal and Cameroon except Buea. They tend to include very much more the Caucasian countries in the limits of Europe: Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia, but also Mongolia, Central Asian countries, and all the countries that belonged to the Soviet Union. African students share a vision of a very large Europe from Brest in France to Vladivostok that is quite unusual in the rest of the sample.

The last class gathers together all the Chinese places of survey, two "new" European Union members' places of survey (Malta and Romania), one close neighbour (Moldova), and two Brazilian cities (Sao Paulo and Manaus).

They are characterised by a very much higher level of inclusion of all peripheral countries of the European Union, including themselves (except for the Chinese and Brazilian cities of course), in the limits of Europe. Neither the Scandinavian countries, the islands, nor the Eastern European countries are left out from their drawing of Europe. This could be explained by two main trends: that of the Chinese students', who mainly use a large circle to draw the limits of Europe, and that of the other countries who include themselves in the limits of Europe. As most of them are in a peripheral situation (Romania, Malta, Moldova), this tends to enlarge the drawing of Europe.

This analysis allows of showing that, if the drawing of Europe enjoys a global consensus, some differences can be observed between the places of survey. What is striking is that:

• There is a strong national coherence, as in most of the cases, the places of survey from the country are gathered in the same class. The main exception is Brazil, where the places of survey are different in terms of population: the share of population of European origin in those countries varies very much and this could be an explanation;

• There is also some quite coherent geographical groupings with spatially close countries are gathered in the same class. We can therefore observe a high correlation of the vision of Europe of old European Union member states, of neighbour and interface countries, and also of remote countries.

Conclusion

The drawing of Europe shows a consensus representation of Europe with the same trend of inclusion. The students agree on the heart of Europe and on the excluded spaces (southern Sahara, Arabian Peninsula). This trend could be explained partly by the conflation we observed between the European Union and Europe: the general trend is to assimilate Europe to the European Union, with variations which correspond to the progressive extension. Another explanation could be the trend observed in the drawing. Generally the shape of a circle is privileged because Europe is more privileged as an idea than as a territorial fact. Globally, the students respect the state borders, and some of them follow coast lines (Indian students). However the observation of the maps shows that the borders of Europe are fuzzy. The fuzziness however is very strong in the northeastern, northwestern, and western directions, but not at all in the southern direction where the frequency of inclusion decreases brutally at the Mediterranean Sea. The Straits of Gibraltar and the Dardanelles seem to function as clear borders of Europe as a mental object for all students when some hesitations can be observed in the north with even clear opposition between some countries of the sample.

5.2 Representations of Europe in the world: Textual analysis 5.2.1 The vision of Europe according to the characteristics of students

The specific vocabulary according to the gender of students

The responses of students have been analysed through their gender. The comparison of the specific vocabulary of each category (men and women) highlights some differences between their visions of Europe. In the case of women, Europe appears as dominated by words belonging to the semantic fields of leisure ("fashion", "travel", "clothes", "tourism", "vacation"), with enhancing consumption ("commercial", and "fashion" which are the most over-represented words). Then, young women seem to have a more idealist and glamorous image of Europe ("romantic", "beauty", "love", "gentleman"). They also point out an aesthetic culture's perception ("monuments", "architecture", and "museums", "art"). The other most quoted words seem to refer to a dimension of social integration ("different", "aid", "mixed", "community", "included", "equality") and to a lesser extent, to the level of development ("modern", "commercial", "resources", "developed", "high"). At least the word "home" is more important for women (67% add this word). It represents 0.18% of the total of women's vocabulary, in comparison with 0.13% of the words used by all the people).

On the other hand, the words over-represented in the specific vocabulary of men belong to a very different semantic field. Europe is mainly seen by men through political and cultural issues ("Christian", "world", "Occident", "continent"). Geopolitical relations of domination ("imperialism", "colonialism", "NATO", "master", "looting", "slavery", "military") are also very present, and sometimes very negative ("xenophobia", "racism", "black"). In this context, connections through sport competition ("football", "leagues", "UEFA", "champions", "fight") are more important in the men's vision. Lastly, words about entertainment ("Coco" (Chanel), "girls", "drugs") expressed by some students in a pejorative way ("decay", "old") are over-represented.

Overall, the feminine vision of Europe is more positive and enjoyable, oriented to aesthetic issues and leisure, and sensitive to social inclusion goals. In opposition, the vision of men is imbued with a certain severity, as if Europe would be the result of a culture based on political domination and "struggle for life". We'll see in the next section that this perception is especially the one of South countries. The gender vision may correspond to larger contrasts between men and women concerning social construction even if an economic thematic is absent. Therefore, this opposition also refers to various ways of considering the geopolitical dimension of Europe: the masculine vision of Europe seems to be closer to the realistic paradigm of international relations, based on confrontation and relations of domination between rival powers. values, cultural patterns, ways of living). Then, it tends to be closer to the vision of the neoliberal international relations theory, recognising the importance of soft power and the possibility of a free cooperation between actors.

The feminine vision emphasises what makes Europe attractive (aesthetic

The specific vocabulary according to the domain of studies

One of the hypotheses of the Eurobroadmap survey concerns the influence of the domain of studies on the vision of Europe developed by students. The students surveyed belong to various domains of study: arts, business, engineering, health, politics, and the social sciences (e.g., geography). The analysis of the specific vocabulary of each category highlights contrasting images.

Unsurprisingly, the specific words associated with Europe by arts students (see Table 10) are more connected with the semantic field of aesthetic creation, in a cultural sense ("art", "music", "fashion", "Eurovision", "culture", "picture", "architecture", "leisure") or in a sensory direction ("pretty", "fine", "love"), and often linked with a temporal dimension ("antiquity", "classical", "evolution"). This relation between Europe and the artistic dimension appears relatively vague. We can notice the absence of any specific masterpiece, artists, monuments, museums, or any particular place of interest. Another semantic field refers to the political dimension. Except for "terrorism" and the negation "not", words positively connoted refer to concrete abilities ("possibilities", "mobility", "human" "rights"), for a better situation ("new", "first"). Finally, an economic vision ("euro", "expansive", "capitalism"), expressed in a general way, is also a little more present for these students.

But students in Arts tend to ignore abstract concepts such as "multicultural", "developed", "imperialism", "xenophobia", "science", "liberalism" and "globalisation". Words implying identity issues, in relation with a place ("continent", "union", "country"), a characteristic ("diversity", "united", "European"), a claim ("identity"), or even with a relationship of opposition ("xenophobia", "imperialism", "selfish") are also under-represented. Aspects which are usually associated with Europe, such as economics words ("income", "liberalism", "developed", "development") or flows ("immigration", "integration", "circulation"), have been less pointed out by those students. Sportive and religious dimensions are also absent ("football", "champions", "Christian", "god").

Students in Business (Table 11) more often focus on the European construction process ("integration", "EU", "surroundings", "commission", "collaboration", "united", "Brussels", "unity", "euro"), even if they point out Europe's roots and heritage: "ancient", "tradition", "kingdom". They seem to associate Europe with prosperity ("food", "rich", "luxury") or with vague qualities ("graceful", "intelligence"). Moreover, some students in Business point out faults such as "injustice" or "barbarous". But this negative perception is not very present for students in Business. Actually, they turn away from words implying negative political judgments such as "racism", "colonialism", "individualism", "pollution", "dictatorship", or "imperialism".

The vision of Europe shared by students in Engineering (Tables 12 and13) is very specific, essentially related to British and French places ("Paris", "England", "Eiffel" "Tower", "France", "Triumphal" "Arch", "Notre Dame" "cathedral") and to positive appreciations, in an idealistic way ("flourishing", "gentle", "contemporary", "abundant", "stylish", "level", "wonderful", "modern", "green", "good"). The over-representation of "Coco" "Chanel" indicates a vision sensitive to luxury and consumption.

We can notice here that words related to the aesthetic dimension are omitted ("elegant, "classical", "architecture", "fashion", "art", "environmental"). Except for "NATO" and "euro", semantic fields connected to geoeconomic and geopolitical issues are systematically under-utilised.

Students in the field of politics (Tables 14 and15) develop a vision of Europe opposed to the previous one, notably influenced by their academic origin: their vocabulary evokes a vision very highly conceptualised around themes related to governance ("democracy", "state", "cooperation", "supranationality", "integration", "immigration", "peace"), geopolitical issues ("war", "compromise", "block", "us", "nations", "Christian"), and political doctrines ("liberalism", "imperialism", "multicultural", "identity"). Curiously, the word "power" is under-represented (this word represent 0.82% of the total words used by students in political fields, but 1.21% for the students as a whole), while a geopolitical thematic is emphasised.

On the other hand, students in Politics avoid words belonging to the register of daily life ("euro", "money", "people", "wealth", "work", "food","natural"). A touristic vision also tends to be ignored ("tourism", "travel", "Paris", "Switzerland", "Eiffel" "tower", "leisure"). Those students quoted less often words about culture ("art", "classical", "cathedral", "variety", "graceful"), the sciences ("technology", "knowledge", "innovation", "science"), or seduction ("luxury", "fashion", "style").

Students in the field of the social sciences (e.g., Geography) (Tables 16 and17) have mostly a negative and a critical vision of Europe, with some very hard words such as "colonialism", "fascism", "looting", "pollution", "imperialism", even if a few words refer to positive ideas ("well-being", "well", "developed", "high"). Neutral words appear to provide geographic information ("country", "European", "where", "Mediterranean", "countries"), and to characterise the society ("industrialised", "populated", "mechanised", "urbanisation", "colourful").

Unlike other students, students in the social sciences tend to avoid words that may reveal a positive aspect ("good", "pretty"), or those related to the economic level ("wealth", "luxury", "flourishing", "comfort"), or with political values ("rights", "freedom"). They refer less to Europe's heritage, its seniority ("ancient", "conservative",), modernity ("modern", "evolution", "possibilities", "integration"), history ("history", "tradition", "renaissance"), and cultural specificities.

The specific vocabulary of students in Health Sciences (Table 18) is more heteroclitic, with a preference for words evoking exchanges ("commercial", "exchanges", "travel", "opening") and a quality of life seen as enjoyable ("sights", "variety", "climate", "development", "nice", "weather"). But some other words tend to focus on bad performances ("faddish", "neo-colonialism"), and on the strict attitude of Europeans ("rules, "discipline").

The words under-represented refer to various semantic fields, such as political and economic governance ("euro", "integration", "union", "European", "parliament", "Brussels", "market"), geopolitical issues ("mainland", "colonialism", "economy", "individualism", "war", "imperialism", "land", "egoism"), and culture ("cathedral", "unity", "diversity", "civilisation", "Christian", "contemporary").

The analysis of the specific vocabularies according to the field of study of the students shows that academic images strongly determine the way students envisage Europe. Thus, the theme of Europe seems mainly to de- pend on student concerns, in relation to their academic branch: Europe is seen through the prism of culture for students in arts, through political doctrines for students in politics, through economic process construction for students in business. Students mobilise very spontaneously the conceptual fields they use in daily life to improve the level of their specific competencies. However, this tendency is more or less visible according to the domain of studies. For example, students in health and in engineering do not seem to export the mental world associated with their discipline to understand Europe. Likewise, students in geography tend to emphasise a little more geographic information, but in a very abstract way, and they never mention particular countries or problematics of Europe's boundaries. The domain of study also influences the implicit judgements, positive or negative, underlying the words most frequently used by students. Students in art, in engineering, and in health tend to develop a positive vision of Europe, based on concrete words focusing on the quality of life, opportunities for tourism, leisure, aesthetic culture and heritage, and on the prosperity which can be found. On the contrary, the vision developed by students in the social sciences and politics is more abstracted, far from daily concerns. In those subjects, students theorise Europe, associating it with general concepts, in economic or political categories, such as "democracy", "development", "liberalism", "imperialism", and "ethnocentrism". Thus, the assessment of Europe appears balanced, mixing negative words mainly linked to the past ("war", "colonialism", "fascism") and positive words such as "integration", "cooperation", "peace". Note that the themes of decline and loss of power which is a European concern till the end of the First World War seem to be omitted. Finally, the vocabulary preferentially used by students in Business is more pragmatic, focusing on processes and achievements of European construction, and leaving out the negative vision. For students in the social and political sciences, Europe cannot be reduced to a "lovely" place, "peaceful", "flourishing" and enjoyable. It is also seen as an ambiguous political model, carrying out a contradictory legacy that affects its relations with the rest of the world. The focus put on geopolitical and geoeconomic matters reveals that Europe is also seen as a political power, faced with social, economic, and institutional issues that privileges from the past will not be sufficient to help resolving them.

Consequently, there is no homogeneous representation of Europe from the students of the different fields of study. We'll see that around the world, the vision of Europe differs also very strongly according to the geographic location of the students and beyond their academic origins.

The specific vocabulary according to student's family level of income

It may be interesting to evaluate the relation between the students' vision of Europe and their social level. The hypothesis may be as follows: the higher the social level of the student, the more they would have opportunities to be open, to travel, to learn about Europe, and to have an empirical and contemporaneous experience and perception of Europe; in contrast, the weaker is the social level of the student, the less they would know about Europe, and the more they would tend to idealise it.

Here, the difficulties are about the means of estimating the social level of the student. We chose to let the students themselves declare the level of income of their family, with three consequences. First, as students choose themselves their social level, they may have declared a higher income in order to give a better image of themselves. Secondly, students had to register the income level of their family, and if generally, family situation looks like student's one, sometimes, a family break-up might produce a gap between the student's income and the family's social level. Third, poverty and wealth have different meanings in different countries or regions. Thus it may be difficult to compare social levels between different countries around the world. That is the reason why we introduced a qualitative scale of income, instead of an income value. Finally, the analysis of the specific vocabulary related to the level of income category allows us to underline contrasted perceptions.

Students who declare the lowest levels of income for their family show different visions of Europe (Tables 19 and20). If some of them described Europe with attractive words, in a utopian way ("centre", "Eldorado", "paradise"), or suggesting positive achievements ("many", "immigration", "income", "high", "democracy", "advanced", "developed", "rich", "industrialised"), others showed a negative perception of Europe, in reference to its history ("colonialism", "Africa", "African", "slavery", "racism", "egoism", "whites") and the occidental complex of superiority ("exploitation", "Occident", "domination", "thieves", "pollution").

On the other hand, students belonging to the lower social category tend to ignore geographical aspects of Europe, through places or touristic sites ("Germany", "Eiffel" "Tower") or words referring to its location ("borders", "Western"). References to its history and cultural heritage are also less important.

It's also interesting to note that political or economical vocabulary does not form a part of the specific words of those students.

When students mention a low-medium income level (Table 21), their vision of Europe looks more like an idealist country, but this time, through abstract qualities ("romantic", "flourishing", "liveable", "comfort", "possibilities", "mysterious", "learning"). At the same time, words meaning superiority of a sidelining are over-represented ("exclusion", "bad", "imperialism"). Then, those students pointed out more often Europe as a part of the world ("West", "group", "England"), to which they apparently do not have a feeling of belonging (words as "us" or "home" are for example absent here), but which they look at with almost positive words ("developed", "classical", "rich"). Those students with a low-medium income level do not associate Europe with words implying openness, such as "mobility", "exchange", "opening", but mostly within an economic direction ("currency", "trade", "borders") or a touristic point of view ("(big) Ben", "Louvre", "travel", "London", "sport"). It seems that they neglect, more or less consciously, what could be seen as the strength of Europe ("sophisticated", "values", "common"), and its economic organisation ("centre", "Brussels").

Going up the social level, students (Table 22 and23) tend to have a more material and consumerist perception of Europe, through quoting places of interest ("Eiffel", "Louvre", "Tower", "Mother" (of) "God", "travel", "sights", "London", "Paris", "Alps") or luxury items ("Chanel", "Ferrari", "Mercedes", "Dior", "classy", "sophisticated"). Thus, economic issues ("union", "borders", "euro", "and currency", "exchange") are very present in their vocabulary. In addition, the aesthetic thematic has been mentioned ("culture", "cosmopolitan", "history").

Different semantic fields are omitted here: politic or history expressions of Europe with negative words ("dictatorship", "African", "North", "colonialism"), or expressing exclusion ("xenophobia", "domination", "master", "racism", "exploitation", "pollution"). At the same time, we do not find an idealised Europe ("Eldorado", "attractive", "mysterious") with a high level of life ("well", "excellent", "high", "advanced") and qualities ("climate", "democracy", "developed", "rich", "industrialised"). Then associating Europe with "Hope" is very rare for those students.

Lastly, few words are over-represented in the vocabulary used by the students belonging to the highest class of income (Table 24). The only ones which can be pointed out are a more territorial image of Europe ("Brussels", "land", "mainland", "common"), rooted in a "contemporary" time ("euro", "innovation") or historical reference ("war").

Those students associate Europe less with adjectives ("developed", "advanced", "classical", "small", "romantic") or a political thematic ("imperialism", "colonialism").

Finally, the prism of income provides a vision of Europe quite delicate of interpretation. If some particular aspects can be put in evidence, there is no general lexical trend depending only on the variation of income.

Certainly, students who declare belonging to lower classes (low and lowmedium) have a more normative (positive or repulsive) vision of Europe, and on the other hand the upper class has a more neutral perception. Then, Europe is less often described as a territory of exclusion, in particular politically, for students at the top of hierarchy of income (medium-high and high). Furthermore, those students tend to have a more pragmatic and contemporaneous perception of Europe, through consumption by example: this fact does not mean necessarily that they went to Europe more often, but that they may have this consumerist attitude generally. The specific vocabulary according to number of languages spoken Here, we analyse the weight of individual multilingualism on Europe's perception. We can suppose that the sense of belonging to Europe, the adherence to the European project, and a positive perception of Europe may be connected with the ability to speak with other European people. Moreover, speaking different languages is required to participate in the integration of the European economic space. Consequently, we can envisage that the wider is a student's linguistic repertory, the more they will draw an empiric, positive, and perhaps political vision of Europe.

Multilingualism of each student is here measured by the number of languages spoken. For this, students declared the number of languages spoken, between one (corresponding to their maternal language) and four (indicating a high level of multilingualism).

Students who declare only one language spoken (Table 25) tend to draw a very concrete, but not necessarily realistic, vision of Europe. They show a consumerist perception of Europe, based on luxury ("fashion", "money", "cars", "Ferrari", "income", "perfumes"), tourism ("Paris", "Eiffel", "tower", "Louvre", "tourism"), or particular countries ("Italy", "Germany"). Those students tend also to emphasise words around competition, related to sports ("football") or conquests ("imperialism", "Nazism", "self-interest", "Napoleon") vocabularies. Some general qualities of Europe ("health", "schools", "quality", "big", "life") are also more pointed out by those students.

In contrast, those students who speak only their maternal language view less often Europe from an historical ("future", "evolution") or cultural ("culture") way. In general, they associate Europe less with its universal socially and political values ("community", "social", "variety", "open", "multicultural", "freedom", "unity", "diversity"). They also omit glamour visions of Europe ("well", "romantic"). Lastly, Europe as a territorial entity ("continent") is almost absent.

When students are bilingual (Tables 26 and27), they tend to imagine Europe more as a "civilisation" with general, smooth and idealistic qualities, around "beauty" ("romantic", "graceful", "elegant", "clean", "pretty", "gentleman"), "comfort" ("quiet", "environment", "cosy"). Its high economic level is more often quoted ("developed", "rich", "flourishing", "leisure", "advanced", "good", "noble", "abundant", "strong", "many"). At the same time, references to the past ("classical", "ancient", "long", "conservative", and "cathedral") are also present. But those students tend to weaken construction process of Europe, concerning governance ("supranationality", "included", "opening", "solidarity", "European", "integration", "diversity", "union", "dependence", "unity"), political issues ("multicultural", "citizenship", "xenophobia", "politics", "racism"), or historical heritage ("tradition", "continent", "wars", "values", "culture"). They also pointed out the economic "strength" of Europe ("interest", "euro", "investment", "development", "exchanges", "future", "progress").

Students who declare speaking three languages (Tables 28 and29) have very contrasted representations of Europe. Sometimes, they point out the European construction process, generally as to its governance ("union", "diversity", "integration", "right", "unity", "freedom", "multicoloured", "Brussels", "opening", "Schengen", "best", "law"), even if economic perspectives are also present ("progress", "exchanges", "poverty", "liberalism", "food"). They also use words anchored in history ("history", "continent", "seniority", "past") or power relationship ("dependence", "America", "aristocracy", "power").

But two kinds of vocabulary tend to be missing from the vocabulary of those students. They under-represent words referring to tourism, through places all over Europe ("Russia", "Spain", "Paris"), or monuments ("Eiffel", "Tower", "cathedral"), "god" , "mother" (Notre Dame). Economic merits ("leisure", "fashion", "advanced", "flourishing", "rich", "developed") or idealistic qualities ("romantic", "mysterious", "beauty", "graceful", "quiet", "clean", "long", "pretty", "elegant", "classical") are also under-represented in the vocabulary of those students. Their vision of Europe is clearly more negative than the others.

The most multilingual students (with four or more languages spoken) (Table 30) have a representation of Europe less specific with few words over-represented. For the first time, the vocabulary colouring is clearly negative. Here, the students point out geopolitical relationships ("opportunist", "Hitler", "domination", "slavery") and exchanges based on exclusion ("racism", "xenophobia"). The European integration process is also more often quoted ("included", "unity", "circulation", "community", "commission", "multicultural", "rules", "diversity"). Unsurprisingly, those students omit idealistic perceptions of Europe ("graceful", "beauty", "mysterious", "elegant", "fashion", "romantic"). The level of development from an essentially in an economic perspective also tend to be ignored ("technology", "population", "health", "leisure", "richness", "flourishing", "advanced", "rich", "developed"). Relations to time ("antiquity", "contemporary", "classical") are also under-represented.

The most multilingual students (with four or more languages spoken) (Table 30) have a representation of Europe less extensive, in terms of the number of significant words over-represented. For the first time, negative words took up all specificities. Those students point out geopolitical relationships ("opportunist", "Hitler", "domination", "slavery") and exclusion exchanges ("racism", "xenophobia",). The European integration process is also more often quoted ("included", "unity", "circulation", "community", "commission", "multicultural", "rules", "diversity").

Conversely, those students omit glamour perception of Europe ("graceful", "beauty", "mysterious", "elegant", "fashion", "romantic"). The level of development tend to be ignored ("technology", "population", "health", "leisure", "richness", "flourishing", "advanced", "rich", "developed"), essentially in an economical perspective. Relations to time ("antiquity", "contemporary", "classical") are also under-represented. Lastly, negative words have been pointed out ("prejudice", "exploitation").

The analysis of the specific vocabulary according to the number of languages spoken does not show a universal vision of Europe. Multilinguality does have a real effect, but in an unexpected way. A gradient in the perception of Europe appears: the more languages a student speaks, the more their vision of Europe is negative. Students who speak only one or two languages tend to have a utopian vision of Europe, through tourism, luxury, or qualities. In fact, they might have never gone away from their country or to the European territory. So they simply imagine Europe as an Eldorado, a land with qualities.

In contrast, students who are more multilingual (three or more languages spoken) envisage Europe more in a negative way, sometimes associated with an economic perspective, sometimes with a vocabulary about exclusion. Then the hypothesis about the open-mindedness of multilingual students is not confirmed and the number of spoken languages is not a sufficient variable to explain differences in the perception of Europe. In addition, for some countries, it is very common to speak several languages, even dialects, (India, Brazil, Cameroon, Senegal, Tunisia, Sweden). At the same time, quite Beyond the personal characteristics of individuals, we want to capture how national affiliation and geographic position of a country influences its students' representations of Europe. For this, we looked at the words quoted in association with Europe by the students of different countries to show the emergence of groups of countries that use some common vocabulary or conversely very different ones. Somehow, it is a semantic "regional effect" that we try to put in evidence with the words quoted to say Europe. To this end, we conducted a correspondence analysis (AFC) on the table, crossing the lemmatised vocabulary (1197 words) and the country of residence of the students surveyed (15 countries and 3 as additional). Output indicators give the base of the analysis and the interpretations: contributions of countries (words) to the formation of the factorial axes, qualities of country representation (words) on the axes, coordinates of the countries (words) on the axes. They help to highlight associations and/or oppositions between countries and words, which structure the data table, and to rank them. Graphic representations from the analysis visualise the statistical associations (by geometric proximity) between the lines (words) and columns (countries) and to interpret the factorial axes. The study of the specific vocabulary of each country (see the next section) supports the interpretation of the proximities and oppositions between countries.

Here we interpret the information provided by the first four axes, which total up to more than half (54%) of the variance contained in the data table. The table of country contributions to the formation of the factorial axes (Table 1) allows of distinguishing three groups of countries: one for which the contribution is very high for at least one axis (China on axis 1, Cameroon on axis 2, Russia on axis 3), a second for which the contributions are strong on several axes (France and Belgium on axes 1 and 3, India on axes 3 and 4) or on a single axis (on axis 2 for Senegal and on axis 4 for Turkey). We here highlight countries with specific representations of Europe, that is to say, different from the general trend, and we are interested in the spatial regionalisation of the vision of Europe, namely sets of countries with the same perception.

The words quoted by students from other countries are more difficult to interpret because the contributions of these countries are relatively low in the first four axes. For the latter, we will observe the contents of their specific vocabulary.

Visions of Europe and distance from Europe

We will therefore concern ourselves primarily with the countries whose contribution values are strong or very strong. The most important opposition

A cheerful view of Europe from the Chinese students

In the group of countries far from Europe, it is China that stands out the most, with a record of very specific vocabulary that reflects an abstract vision of an idealised Europe, almost mythical or fantastical. The words are mostly adjectives with positive connotations: "romantic", "elegant", "harmonious", "flourish", "graceful", "pretty", "small is beautiful", "mysterious", but probably for those who do not know Europe. On another register, the economic qualities ("developed", "flourishing", "prosperous") and those of daily life ("welfare", "leisure", "climate", "scenery") are underlined. The lexical register is still quite vague with the use of fuzzy terms ("harmonious", "pretty", "prosperous"). One wonders at the absence of specific locations but especially words referring to politics, democracy and freedom.

A shared economic vision of European countries

This ideal vision contrasts with the more economic approach to Europe expressed primarily by students of the founding countries of the European 194 Union (France, Belgium, and Portugal). They see it as a "space", a "continent", a "union", a means of exchanges ("exchanges", "Schengen") primarily of a commercial nature, with a single "currency" (euro) and a "power". For these students, Europe is a community made up of "diversity" and "sharing" but with its "borders", its "difficulties" and a social inequality that occurs primarily in space despite the "freedom" to move and speak. Finally, the representation of Europe is ambivalent here, sometimes with positive connotations, sometimes negative, more related to political and economic issues of European integration.

Students interviewed in Belgium share with French students the idea of a territorial entity (mainland), in the sense of appropriation or even claim. Their vision, however, is more centred on Brussels ("Brussels"), the European commission ("commission"), and the European parliament ("parliament"), but limited mostly to the "West" of Europe. We are here in a perception of Europe as a whole region, sensitive to the functioning of the institutions of the EU.

The vocabulary of Portuguese students also participates in this economic register. We find the words "union", "development", "euro". These terms also refer to a representation of Europe as a regional set, a "community" of coun- tries, and therefore a source of "multiculturalism" but also of "cooperation". Beyond this economic vision, we make out a more cultural dimension ("culture", "gastronomy")

The vision expressed by the students of the first countries forming the European Union is also shared in part by the students from the new member states of the European Union such as Hungary and Malta and most recently Romania.

While the majority of words given by students in Hungary is quite similar to those quoted in France, Belgium and Portugal ("union", "variety", "continent", "culture"), nevertheless it shows a highly specific vocabulary. Primarily, the religious aspects ("Christendom") are highlighted, and they are virtually the only students to mention this dimension. It is difficult to interpret this aspect, since it can express both the religious and historical particularity of Hungary as well as the mark of an identity claim. We notice also from the Hungarian students a willingness to mark their belonging to Europe by appointing it as their "home" (home) or by associating the name of their country. The Romanians meanwhile have a fairly limited vocabulary but place greater emphasis on the "civilisation" of Europe, based on its "culture", its "history", its "traditions", and its "seniority", but more from a perspective of observation than a perspective of judgment. These aspects of neutrality and quasi-smooth image of Europe are present in the other two terms most commonly cited by the Romanian students, close to the European motto: "unity" and "diversity".

An accusing vision on the part of Cameroonian and Senegalese students

Confronting this positive view from European countries and idealised view from China, there is a very negative vision, even accusatory, emanating from the African students and especially from Cameroon. It is firstly the gap in terms of "development" that is evoked by the students, not only in the dominant economic content ("technology", "industrialised", "urbanisation") but also in living standards ("rich"). Expressions of a sense of "exploitation" or "domination" throughout the history of "colonialism" and "slavery" appear soon in European representations of the students from Cameroon and Senegal. The terms are numerous and varied and clearly evoke criticism: "racism", "pollution", "selfishness", "capitalism", "thieves". The North-South geopolitical opposition is also very present through the words "North", "West" and "white". Even for some, Europe is seen as a state that cannot be reached: "Eldorado", "paradise", "hope". Finally, for these students, Europe is not symbolised by political values, since only "democracy" is present in the most quoted terms. This vision is shared to a lesser extent by the Senegalese students, with a vocabulary more specific and smaller. It also expresses a very negative view of Europe by stressing more often "racism", "xenophobia", or the "individualism" shown by Europe. Very clearly, for Senegalese students, Europe is synonym of a sidelining.

More complex visions of Europe

Reading the following factorial plan (plan 3-4, Figure 2) allows observing a further differentiation in the vocabulary of students according to their country of residence. Axis 3 isolates the representations of Russians, associated to a lesser extent with Indians, and opposed to that of France and Belgium.

A stereotypical view from the Russians and Indians

For students in Russia, Europe corresponds first and foremost to the European Union, including the UK. They underline their distance from this entity, which remains a "foreign country" linked to "NATO". Yet, despite these political terms, Europe is not seen as a power. It is seen more as a tourist destination ("resort", "restaurant", "architecture") which attaches itself to a variety of clichÃľs mixing touristic sites ("Eiffel Tower", "Notre Dame", "Big Ben", "Arc de Triomphe", "Paris"), luxury ("fashion", "Ferrari", "Chanel", "Mercedes"), and appearance ("cars", "clean", "order"). Beyond this fairly trivial image of Europe, some words appear in the register of the competition, both by game ("football", "Eurovision") and linked with history ("Napoleon"). Finally, there are a few words, more common, in relation with the economic functioning of Europe ("European", "Union", "standard of living").

The Indians have a rather fragmented vision of Europe. It is most often seen as a "place" or "country". This representation is akin to that sometimes idealised Chinese moment ("beauty", "sophisticated", "stylish"), linked with a "lifestyle" and the presence of "nature". The "Swiss" is evocative of Europe as well as "India Company", reflecting historical ties with India. Among the specific associated words are those of historical figures ("Hitler"). Finally, some words can be grouped around tourist representations in a broad sense ("monuments", "visit", "food") or financial aspects ("food", "expensive"). A more mixed vision from Turks, Brazilians and Tunisians India is also very present on the fourth axis (Figure 2) alongside Turkish students. The latter have a particular approach involving primarily Europe's "imperialism" which originates from a union or a "club" of "Christians". In this rather historical representation on the part of the Turkish students, there are also critical terms about Europe ("arrogant", "discrimination", "benefit", "money"), guided by a personal interest ("self-interest") or an opportunistic behaviour ("self-seeker"). This negative view of a Europe from which Turkey feels left out may explain the presence of the word "Turkey" among the words most cited by students: they both criticise this position and claim a European identity. All this is offset by a positive perception of several students that emphasise the "modern" and "contemporary" aspect of Europe, its support for "civilisation", including respect for human rights. This both positive and critical representation of Europe is the one also coming from the Brazilian and Tunisian students with vocabulary slightly different according to the country ("xenophobia" for Brazilians, "racist" for Tunisians). Thus, the Brazilian students perceive Europe through its higher level of "development" ("richness", "quality", "wealth", "first" "world"), and its historical ("antiquity", "old", "war", "tradition") and cultural specificities ("culture", "museums", "knowledge"). In short, Europe is seen as a "civilisation". Here the connotations appear ambivalent: Europe is sometimes seen as a factor of sidelining ("xenophobia", "prejudice", "seniority", "cold"), sometimes as a pull factor ("richness", "exploration", "life").

Figure 43 :

 43 Figure 43: Europe map in the questionnaire

Figure 46 :

 46 Figure 46: Rules applied for the digitalisation of mental maps

Figure 47 :

 47 Figure 47: Percentage of maps digitalised compared to the number of questionnaires gathered

Figure 49 :

 49 Figure 49: Extension of Europe according all students surveyed

Figure 51 :

 51 Figure 51: Frequency (%) of inclusion of countries in Europe regarding their status vis a vis European Union

Figure 53 :

 53 Figure 53: Correlation between France and Belgium (highest correlation)

Figure 55 :

 55 Figure 55: Differences between countries from Europe and the entire sample

Figure 56 :

 56 Figure 56: Differences between southern and eastern neighbouring countries of the European Union and the entire sample

Figure 59 :

 59 Figure 59: Typology of countries by places of survey

Figure 60 :

 60 Figure 60: Places of survey grouped according how they included countries in Europe

Figure 61 :

 61 Figure 61: Factorial plan 1-2

Table 8

 8

			: Specific vocabulary of women
	Specific	Internal Global Internal	Global	Test-value
	words	rate	rate	frequency frequency
	fashion	0.83	0.60	149	220	5.571
	travel	0.45	0.32	80	116	4.269
	monuments	0.11	0.05	19	20	4.196
	architecture	0.22	0.15	40	54	3.618
	romantic	0.74	0.59	132	215	3.605
	beauty	1.73	1.50	310	548	3.557
	culture	3.22	2.91	577	1063	3.500
	museums	0.08	0.04	14	15	3.376
	different	0.26	0.18	46	66	3.285
	modern	1.08	0.92	194	335	3.246
	gentleman	0.06	0.03	10	10	3.160
	love	0.13	0.09	24	32	2.816
	aid	0.06	0.03	11	12	2.800
	commercial	0.08	0.05	15	18	2.760
	mixed	0.08	0.05	15	18	2.760
	community	0.43	0.34	77	125	2.753
	included	0.04	0.02	8	8	2.717
	art	0.60	0.50	107	182	2.593
	resources	0.15	0.10	27	38	2.592
	some	0.07	0.04	12	14	2.563
	clothes	0.07	0.04	12	14	2.563
	Eurovision	0.07	0.04	12	14	2.563
	population	0.23	0.17	42	64	2.560
	high	1.09	0.95	195	349	2.549
	equality	0.04	0.02	7	7	2.472
	home	0.18	0.13	33	49	2.452
	order	0.18	0.13	33	49	2.452
	developed	2.93	2.72	525	994	2.443
	tourism	0.61	0.51	109	188	2.413
	vacation	0.07	0.04	13	16	2.387

Table 10 :

 10 Specific vocabulary of Art students

	Specific	Internal Global Internal	Global	Test-value
	words	rate	rate	frequency frequency
	art	1.55	0.51	78	182	9.420
	pretty	0.24	0.04	12		5.518
	music	0.42	0.11	21		5.506
	fashion	1.19	0.61	60	220	5.082
	fine	0.18	0.04	9		3.907
	terrorism	0.20	0.05	10		3.776
	Eurovision	0.16	0.04	8		3.537
	euro	2.32	1.70	117	611	3.480
	possibilities	0.16	0.04	8		3.367
	culture	3.71	2.96	187	1063	3.263
	picture	0.14	0.04	7		3.143
	mobility	0.20	0.07	10		3.133
	rights	0.65	0.38	33	136	3.097
	human	0.65	0.39	33	140	2.907
	architecture	0.32	0.15	16		2.832
	antiquity	0.20	0.08	10		2.706
	classical	0.44	0.24	22		2.676
	evolution	0.28	0.14	14		2.508
	leisure	0.32	0.16	16		2.508
	capitalism	0.81	0.56	41	200	2.434
	expensive	0.18	0.08	9		2.367
	love	0.20	0.09	10		2.331
	first	0.24	0.12	12		2.302
	girls	0.12	0.04	6		2.251
	united	0.12	0.26	6		-2.057
	football	0.28	0.47	14	168	-2.120
	income	0.00	0.08	0		-2.242
	liberalism	0.06	0.19	3		-2.287
	European	1.47	1.88	74	677	-2.345
	union	2.64	3.23	133	1160	-2.564
	immigration	0.02	0.14	1		-2.641
	development	1.96	2.51	99	901	-2.681
	continent	0.71	1.08	36	387	-2.736
	xenophobia	0.10	0.29	5	104	-2.849
	imperialism	0.24	0.51	12	183	-3.045
	developed	1.98	2.76	100	994	-3.748
	multicultural	0.00	0.25	0		-4.692

Table 11 :

 11 Specific vocabulary of Business students

	Specific	Internal Global Internal	Global	Test-value
	words	rate	rate	frequency frequency
	integration	0.43	0.19	26	69	4.031
	food	0.35	0.14	21	52	3.896
	EU	0.12	0.03	7	9	3.718
	surroundings	0.13	0.04	8	13	3.374
	region	0.18	0.07	11	24	3.126
	commission	0.12	0.03	7	12	2.995
	collaboration	0.12	0.03	7	12	2.995
	rich	2.11	1.65	128	594	2.952
	united	0.45	0.26	27	92	2.877
	ancient	0.33	0.18	20	63	2.783
	graceful	0.18	0.08	11	27	2.767
	luxury	0.30	0.16	18	56	2.679
	injustice	0.12	0.04	7	14	2.623
	being	0.10	0.03	6	11	2.586
	Brussels	0.31	0.18	19	63	2.493
	barbarous	0.10	0.03	6	12	2.394
	unity	0.71	0.51	43	182	2.271
	intelligence	0.15	0.07	9	24	2.240
	euro	2.05	1.70	124	611	2.205
	tradition	0.58	0.40	35	145	2.161
	kingdom	0.17	0.08	10	29	2.133
	sea	0.17	0.08	10	29	2.133
	God	0.00	0.06	0	21	-2.038
	not	0.02	0.09	1	32	-2.045
	open	0.15	0.28	9	100	-2.074
	Turkey	0.00	0.06	0	22	-2.113
	world	0.78	1.03	47	370	-2.124
	imperialism	0.33	0.51	20	183	-2.126
	exchanges	0.02	0.09	1	34	-2.173
	flourishing	0.03	0.12	2	44	-2.182
	dictatorship	0.00	0.06	0	23	-2.187
	cathedral	0.00	0.07	0	24	-2.259
	area	0.02	0.10	1	36	-2.296
	pollution	0.10	0.23	6	82	-2.325
	other	0.00	0.07	0	26	-2.397
	individualism	0.02	0.11	1	38	-2.416
	values	0.00	0.08	0	27	-2.464
	industrialised	0.91	1.25	55	451	-2.678
	new	0.00	0.11	0	39	-3.175
	colonialism	0.38	0.73	23	261	-3.643
	racism	0.59	1.04	36	373	-3.895

Table 14 :

 14 Over-represented specific vocabulary of Politics students

	Specific	Internal Global Internal	Global	Test-value
	words	rate	rate	frequency frequency
	war	0.78	0.41	46	147	4.405
	liberalism	0.44	0.19	26	67	4.293
	imperialism	0.90	0.51	53	183	4.200
	democracy	1.85	1.26	109	453	4.190
	amounts	0.10	0.02	6	6	4.118
	compromise	0.12	0.03	7	9	3.768
	state	0.19	0.06	11	20	3.753
	cooperation	0.41	0.20	24	72	3.421
	supranationality	0.10	0.02	6	8	3.356
	integration	0.39	0.19	23	69	3.344
	immigration	0.31	0.14	18	51	3.158
	Christian	0.58	0.34	34	122	3.114
	multicultural	0.44	0.25	26	89	2.931
	identity	0.17	0.06	10	23	2.884
	block	0.10	0.03	6	10	2.848
	evolution	0.27	0.14	16	49	2.672
	relax	0.10	0.03	6	11	2.638
	nations	0.19	0.08	11	29	2.627
	geography	0.10	0.03	6	12	2.448
	flourishing	0.24	0.12	14	44	2.391
	peace	0.83	0.61	49	220	2.217

Table 19 :

 19 Over-represented specific vocabulary of students with a low level

	of income
	Specific	Internal Global Internal	Global	Test-value
	words	rate	rate	frequency frequency
	industrialised	2.52	1.24	132	451	8.101
	colonialism	1.43	0.72	75	261	5.914
	countries	1.75	1.04	92	379	5.042
	exploitation	0.90	0.46	47	169	4.439
	racism	1.58	1.03	83	373	4.016
	Occident	0.57	0.27	30	98	3.995
	rich	2.31	1.63	121	594	3.923
	developed	3.59	2.73	188	994	3.905
	advanced	0.86	0.49	45	177	3.775
	democracy	1.81	1.25	95	453	3.740
	domination	0.53	0.26	28	94	3.721
	Africa	0.19	0.05	10	19	3.715
	African	0.17	0.04	9	16	3.680
	high	1.43	0.96	75	349	3.516
	egoism	0.38	0.18	20	66	3.182
	income	0.21	0.08	11	29	2.957
	paradise	0.21	0.08	11	29	2.957
	slavery	0.19	0.07	10	25	2.953
	Eldorado	0.23	0.09	12	34	2.881
	thieves	0.19	0.07	10	26	2.844
	immigration	0.29	0.14	15	51	2.617
	whites	0.13	0.04	7	16	2.616
	many	0.27	0.13	14	47	2.563
	pollution	0.40	0.23	21	82	2.551
	people	0.53	0.33	28	119	2.551
	centre	0.44	0.26	23	93	2.522

Table 21 :

 21 Specific vocabulary of students with a low-medium level of income

	Specific	Internal Global Internal	Global	Test-value
	words	rate	rate	frequency frequency
	romantic	0.75	0.59	113	215	3.155
	Exclusion	0.07	0.04	11	14	2.531
	flourishing	0.18	0.12	27	44	2.479
	comfort	0.31	0.23	47	85	2.423
	long	0.09	0.05	14	20	2.331
	developed	2.97	2.73	450	994	2.296
	liveable	0.05	0.02	7	8	2.288
	group	0.11	0.07	16	24	2.263
	possibilities	0.07	0.04	11	15	2.217
	bad	0.07	0.04	11	15	2.217
	classical	0.31	0.24	47	87	2.216
	England	0.13	0.08	19	30	2.207
	mysterious	0.14	0.09	21	34	2.188
	West	0.38	0.30	57	109	2.143
	learning	0.05	0.03	8	10	2.138
	imperialism	0.60	0.50	91	183	2.130
	rich	1.80	1.63	273	594	2.090
	currency	0.08	0.13	12	46	-2.034
	sophisticated	0.04	0.08	6	28	-2.036
	centre	0.18	0.26	28	93	-2.189
	exchange	0.06	0.11	9	40	-2.366
	mobility	0.03	0.07	4	24	-2.374
	sport	0.05	0.10	8	37	-2.379
	Ben	0.01	0.05	2	17	-2.381
	Louvre	0.01	0.04	1	14	-2.524
	Mercedes	0.00	0.03	0	10	-2.608
	common	0.09	0.15	13	55	-2.650
	borders	0.07	0.13	10	46	-2.678
	Brussels	0.10	0.17	15	63	-2.828
	opening	0.01	0.04	1	16	-2.844
	travel	0.21	0.32	32	116	-3.050
	values	0.02	0.07	3	27	-3.238
	trade	0.09	0.17	13	62	-3.299
	London	0.01	0.06	1	21	-3.549

Table 25 :

 25 Specific vocabulary of students with one language spoken

	Specific	Internal Global Internal	Global	Test-value
	words	rate	rate	frequency frequency
	fashion	1.31	0.60	50	220	5.257
	Paris	0.53	0.16	20		4.757
	imperialism	1.02	0.50	39	183	4.272
	football	0.95	0.46	36	168	4.126
	Eiffel	0.53	0.21	20		3.670
	Nazism	0.21	0.05	8		3.643
	Tower	0.55	0.24	21		3.535
	health	0.32	0.11	12		3.350
	schools	0.16	0.03	6		3.215
	money	0.84	0.48	32	175	3.078
	cars	0.32	0.12	12		3.071
	Ferrari	0.16	0.04	6		3.060
	quality	0.60	0.31	23	114	3.006
	Louvre	0.16	0.04	6		2.917
	income	0.24	0.08	9		2.882
	perfumes	0.18	0.05	7		2.867
	self-interest	0.18	0.06	7		2.654
	European	2.42	1.84	92	677	2.632
	where	0.13	0.03	5		2.573
	tourism	0.81	0.51	31	188	2.497
	Italy	0.32	0.14	12		2.457
	Germany	0.34	0.17	13		2.378
	big	0.34	0.17	13		2.276
	life	0.74	0.47	28	173	2.273
	Napoleon	0.16	0.05	6		2.219
	community	0.16	0.34	6	125	-2.032
	future	0.08	0.23	3		-2.101
	social	0.08	0.23	3		-2.101
	variety	0.03	0.15	1		-2.139
	culture	2.34	2.89	89	1063	-2.151
	continent	0.71	1.05	27	387	-2.199
	no	0.00	0.12	0		-2.363
	open	0.08	0.27	3	100	-2.524
	well	0.00	0.13	0		-2.559
	evolution	0.00	0.13	0		-2.597
	multicultural	0.05	0.24	2		-2.675
	romantic	0.26	0.58	10	215	-2.880
	freedom	0.76	1.24	29	455	-2.885
	unity	0.13	0.49	5	182	-3.737
	diversity	0.24	0.78	9	287	-4.490

Table 30 :

 30 Specific vocabulary of students speaking four (or more) languages

	Specific	Internal Global Internal	Global	Test-value
	words	rate	rate	frequency frequency
	racism	1.66	1.01	102	373	5.146
	xenophobia	0.62	0.28	38	104	4.789
	included	0.11	0.02	7	8	4.062
	unity	0.82	0.49	50	182	3.589
	circulation	0.18	0.06	11	23	3.281
	Eldorado	0.23	0.09	14	34	3.228
	Spain	0.23	0.10	14	35	3.128
	love	0.20	0.09	12	32	2.667
	less	0.11	0.04	7	15	2.478
	community	0.52	0.34	32	125	2.445
	opportunist	0.10	0.03	6	12	2.413
	commission	0.10	0.03	6	12	2.413
	Hitler	0.15	0.06	9	23	2.383
	multicultural	0.39	0.24	24	89	2.343
	domination	0.41	0.26	25	94	2.327
	rules	0.13	0.05	8	20	2.282
	Switzerland	0.18	0.09	11	33	2.176
	English	0.13	0.06	8	21	2.156
	slavery	0.15	0.07	9	25	2.152
	diversity	1.01	0.78	62	287	2.116
	environment	0.05	0.14	3	53	-2.143
	countries	0.77	1.03	47	379	-2.236
	prejudice	0.00	0.07	0	24	-2.240
	graceful	0.00	0.07	0	27	-2.444
	antiquity	0.00	0.08	0	28	-2.509
	exploitation	0.26	0.46	16	169	-2.554
	small	0.16	0.33	10	122	-2.563
	contemporary	0.00	0.08	0	29	-2.573
	beauty	1.13	1.49	69	548	-2.599
	mysterious	0.00	0.09	0	34	-2.874
	leisure	0.03	0.16	2	59	-2.928
	richness	0.13	0.34	8	124	-3.230
	classical	0.07	0.24	4	87	-3.248
	flourishing	0.00	0.12	0	44	-3.409
	elegant	0.05	0.22	3	82	-3.459
	advanced	0.21	0.48	13	177	-3.527
	rich	1.09	1.61	67	594	-3.657
	fashion	0.26	0.60	16	220	-4.003
	developed	1.76	2.70	108	994	-5.189
	romantic	0.05	0.58	3	215	-7.327

Table 31 :

 31 Contributions of country of residence of students for training the Turkey does not contribute to the formation of axes 1 and 3. It explains almost 3% of the information contained in axis 2 and a quarter of that of axis 4 (22.75%).(axis 1) is observed between the vocabulary used by students who reside outside Europe, especially the Chinese, to describe Europe, and European students from France and Belgium and, to a lesser extent, those of Portugal and Hungary.

	first four factorial axes
	Country	Weight Distance/origin Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 Axis 4
	Belgium	4.68	2.66	9.65	1.29	7.95	2.92
	Brazil	10.35	1.20	2.48	0.00	0.36	3.72
	China	12.33	2.20	52.05	22.26	7.01	4.16
	Cameroon 13.64	1.58	5.07	53.60	0.00	16.39
	Egypt	1.40	4.53	0.09	0.03	0.50	2.06
	France	6.53	1.93	11.03	0.79	11.30	1.33
	Hungary	2.62	3.97	3.23	0.93	3.12	0.29
	India	11.66	1.30	2.91	0.19	9.34	25.78
	Moldova	2.63	2.60	0.52	0.06	0.23	0.24
	Malta	2.35	2.64	0.21	0.33	0.16	0.41
	Portugal	5.31	1.49	5.64	0.49	3.10	0.02
	Romania	3.57	2.33	2.67	0.84	2.19	0.42
	Russia	9.45	2.17	4.44	8.06	54.58	18.18
	Senegal	2.30	3.86	0.01	7.21	0.11	0.33
	Tunisia	2.53	2.86	0.00	1.06	0.06	0.99
	Turkey	8.67	1.74	0.00	2.84	0.00	22.75
	Example of reading:

Table 32 :

 32 Specific vocabulary of Chinese students The frequency of the adjective romantic among all of the words used to describe Europe is 0.58% (215 occurrences). It is 4.56% for Chinese students with an associated test value very significant (>2). The adjective "romantic" is thus very specific to the population of Chinese students.

	Specific	Internal Global Internal	Global	Test-value
	words	rate	rate	frequency frequency
	romantic	4.56	0.58	204	215	27.984
	developed	7.91	2.68	354	994	19.531
	rich	5.45	1.60	244	594	18.016
	elegant	1.52	0.22	68	82	14.636
	classical	1.50	0.23	67	87	13.892
	advanced	2.17	0.48	97	177	13.676
	flourishing	0.96	0.12	43	44	12.966
	open	1.43	0.27	64	100	12.166
	beauty	3.77	1.47	169	548	11.717
	small	1.50	0.33	67	122	11.344
	mysterious	0.69	0.08	31	31	11.169
	leisure	0.96	0.16	43	59	10.723
	graceful	0.60	0.07	27	27	10.388
	civilisation	2.88	1.28	129	476	8.911
	climate	0.78	0.17	35	64	8.117
	quiet	0.45	0.07	20	25	7.632
	pretty	0.34	0.04	15	15	7.590
	scenery	0.56	0.11	25	41	7.296
	noble	0.29	0.03	13	13	7.020
	environmental	0.38	0.06	17	23	6.687
	welfare	0.92	0.30	41	112	6.612
	Reading:

Table 33 :

 33 Specific vocabulary of French students

	Specific	Internal Global Internal	Global	Test-value
	words	rate	rate	frequency frequency
	Exchanges	1.31	0.09	31	34	12.132
	Union	7.38	3.12	175	1160	10.629
	trade	1.27	0.17	30	62	9.047
	space	0.80	0.08	19	28	8.261
	Euro	3.88	1.64	92	611	7.591
	power	2.95	1.17	70	434	7.061
	free	1.27	0.28	30	103	7.032
	continent	2.66	1.04	63	387	6.747
	Schengen	0.80	0.12	19	46	6.650
	currency	0.80	0.12	19	46	6.650
	inequality	0.76	0.11	18	42	6.578
	diversity	2.15	0.77	51	287	6.551
	community	1.31	0.34	31	125	6.490
	borders	0.76	0.12	18	46	6.301
	identity	0.55	0.06	13	23	6.274
	sharing	0.46	0.04	11	16	6.235
	economy	2.95	1.36	70	507	5.989
	politics	1.43	0.44	34	165	5.988
	difficulties	0.34	0.03	8	11	5.378

Table 34 :

 34 Specific vocabulary of Belgian students

	Specific	Internal Global Internal	Global	Test-value
	words	rate	rate	frequency frequency
	mainland	2.65	0.13	45	47	16.041
	euro	6.54	1.64	111	611	12.490
	Brussels	2.18	0.17	37	63	11.982
	union	9.07	3.12	154	1160	11.907
	exchange	1.18	0.11	20	40	8.240
	economy	3.77	1.36	64	507	7.227
	European	4.24	1.82	72	677	6.527
	commission	0.53	0.03	9	12	6.284
	parliament	0.77	0.10	13	37	5.740
	community	1.35	0.34	23	125	5.593
	West	1.18	0.29	20	109	5.192
	Table 35: Specific vocabulary of Portuguese students
	Specific	Internal Global Internal	Global	Test-value
	words	rate	rate	frequency frequency
	union	9.33	3.12	180	1160	13.249
	culture	6.48	2.86	125	1063	8.476
	development	5.75	2.43	111	901	8.367
	community	1.76	0.34	34	125	7.978
	single	0.52	0.04	10	14	6.340
	euro	3.68	1.64	71	611	6.231
	multicultural	1.04	0.24	20	89	5.463
	cooperation	0.88	0.19	17	72	5.164
	gastronomy	0.41	0.04	8	15	5.033

Table 37 :

 37 Specific vocabulary of Romanian students

	Specific	Internal Global Internal	Global	Test-value
	words	rate	rate	frequency frequency
	diversity	4.78	0.77	62	287	11.551
	unity	3.47	0.49	45	182	10.388
	culture	8.49	2.86	110	1063	10.116
	civilisation	5.17	1.28	67	476	9.641
	tradition	2.78	0.39	36	145	9.282
	history	5.02	1.32	65	491	9.141
	seniority	0.93	0.08	12	28	6.442
				200

Table 38 :

 38 Specific vocabulary of Cameroonian students

	Specific	Internal Global Internal	Global	Test-value
	words	rate	rate	frequency frequency
	industrialised	5.53	1.21	274	451	23.658
	exploitation	2.58	0.45	128	169	18.449
	colonialism	3.01	0.70	149	260	16.694
	racism	3.67	1.00	182	373	16.551
	pollution	1.39	0.22	69	82	14.415
	countries	2.87	1.02	142	378	11.846
	North	0.87	0.14	43	52	11.194
	Occident	1.23	0.26	61	98	11.185
	domination	1.15	0.25	57	94	10.624
	Eldorado	0.65	0.09	32	34	10.512
	neo-colonialism	0.50	0.07	25	27	9.133
	egoism	0.79	0.18	39	66	8.602
	capitalism	1.43	0.53	71	196	8.045
	continent	2.26	1.04	112	387	8.033
	slavery	0.42	0.07	21	25	7.806
	rich	2.95	1.60	146	594	7.387
	paradise	0.42	0.08	21	29	7.109
	master	0.30	0.05	15	17	6.745
	wicked	0.24	0.03	12	12	6.538
	white	0.71	0.24	35	89	6.019
	thieves	0.34	0.07	17	26	5.966
	urbanisation	0.38	0.09	19	32	5.942
	democracy	2.16	1.22	107	453	5.910
	hope	0.36	0.08	18	31	5.691
	developed	3.94	2.68	195	994	5.560
	technology	1.59	0.88	79	327	5.243

Table 40 :

 40 Specific vocabulary of Indian students

	Specific	Internal Global Internal	Global	T-value
	words	rate	rate	frequency frequency
	country	1.65	0.38	70	140	11.228
	beauty	3.28	1.47	139	548	9.105
	Europe	1.44	0.45	61	169	8.330
	food	0.73	0.14	31	52	8.234
	sophisticated	0.50	0.08	21	28	7.681
	expensive	0.43	0.07	18	27	6.626
	stylish	0.26	0.03	11	11	6.494
	place	0.78	0.23	33	86	6.371
	Switzerland	0.45	0.09	19	33	6.256
	lifestyle	0.28	0.04	12	14	6.168
	visit	0.26	0.03	11	13	5.840
	India (East India Co.)	0.21	0.02	9	9	5.805
	natural	0.38	0.08	16	31	5.347
	Hitler	0.31	0.06	13	23	5.066
	monuments	0.28	0.05	12	20	5.029

Table 41 :

 41 Specific vocabulary of Turkish students

	Specific	Internal Global Internal	Global	Test-value
	words	rate	rate	frequency frequency
	imperialism	2.76	0.49	87	183	13.902
	Christian	1.87	0.32	59	120	11.609
	modern	3.11	0.90	98	335	11.016
	contemporary	0.83	0.08	26	29	10.302
	self-interest	0.64	0.06	20	21	9.306
	(human) rights	1.49	0.37	47	136	8.460
	IMF	0.48	0.04	15	15	8.248
	Turkey	0.48	0.06	15	22	6.743
	benefit	0.38	0.05	12	17	6.093
	arrogant	0.64	0.15	20	55	5.620
	technology	1.87	0.88	59	327	5.449
	self-seeker	0.22	0.02	7	7	5.412
	money	1.21	0.47	38	175	5.300
	discrimination	0.48	0.10	15	36	5.237
	civilisation	2.38	1.28	75	476	5.142

Table 42 :

 42 Specific vocabulary of Brazilian students

	Specific	Internal Global Internal	Global	Test-value
	words	rate	rate	frequency frequency
	wealth	2.98	0.80	112	297	12.644
	development	5.46	2.43	205	901	11.170
	first (world)	0.90	0.11	34	42	10.671
	history	3.54	1.32	133	491	10.651
	cold	1.68	0.41	63	151	10.079
	old	2.82	1.01	106	375	9.849
	quality	1.28	0.31	48	114	8.824
	culture	5.38	2.86	202	1063	8.815
	xenophobia	1.17	0.28	44	104	8.465
	antiquity	0.56	0.08	21	28	7.986
	tradition	1.30	0.39	49	145	7.665
	richness	1.12	0.33	42	124	7.095
	world	2.18	1.00	82	370	6.759
	war	1.17	0.40	44	147	6.592
	prejudice	0.40	0.06	15	24	6.076
	seniority	0.43	0.08	16	28	5.982
	tourism	1.28	0.51	48	188	5.971
	exploration	0.27	0.03	10	12	5.699
	life	1.17	0.47	44	173	5.688
	knowledge	0.69	0.22	26	81	5.315
	museums	0.27	0.04	10	15	5.064

This analysis should be deepened by building a model introducing both the distance from the heart of the European Union (let's say Brussels) and the membership status regarding the European Union.

On the other hand, for the Tunisian students, the economic terms "progress", "technological", or "health" are associated with Europe as well as the values of "human rights" and "freedom". In contrast, Europe is also negatively described by strong words such as "racism" or "terrorism".

A positive view of Europe from the margins: Moldova and Malta

Students from Moldova and Malta have a representation of Europe which does not differ from other countries, despite some over-represented words in the vocabulary of Moldavian students even if they are used by a large number of students in other countries. However, all the words quoted by the Moldavian students reflect a highly positive vision of Europe. The only word over-represented in Malta is the "Mediterranean" which is a crucial characteristic of that country.

For countries which have been put in "additional" in the factor analysis, Egypt and Azerbaijan, they appear alongside India and Turkey on the second factorial axis. Sweden does not differ from other countries and the single term over-represented for the Azerbaijan students is the educational aspect.