66 67
Slovenščina 2.0, 2020 (1)
THREAT PERCEPTION IN ONLINE ANTI-MIGRANT 
SPEECH: A SLOVENE CASE STUDY
R o k  C H I T R A K A R
Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana
Chitrakar, R. (2020): Threat perception in online anti-migrant speech: A Slovene case study. 
Slovenščina 2.0, 8(1): 66–91. 
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/slo2.0.2020.1.66-91
The aim of this article is to describe the perception of refugees as a threat 
in Slovene online discourse, based on a critical analysis of commenters’ re-
sponses to popular media posts at the height of the European migrant crisis. 
The proposition of the study is that the perception of migration as a threat is 
at the core of socially unacceptable discourse (SUD), portraying refugees and 
migrants as an undesirable and potentially dangerous presence. Within the 
framework of a comprehensive project examining public responses to media 
coverage of the arrival of migrants to Slovenia, online comments classified 
as SUD targeting refugees were extracted and annotated to reveal the recur-
ring themes of threat perception. The analysis focused on describing the main 
categories of threat, as well as the various discursive features and strategies 
employed. Although the approach to observing this subject is essentially qual-
itative, a general case-specific overview of the frequency and distribution of 
identifiable categories is also given.
Keywords: corpus analysis, critical discourse analysis, anti-migrant speech, hate 
speech, European migration
1  I N T R O D U C T I O N
In the wake of the war in Syria and the growing involvement of foreign armed 
forces in the wider regional conflict, Europe was faced with increasing num-
bers of migrants entering its territories in search of refuge and assistance. The 
arrival of migrants to Europe reached mass proportions in the second half 
67
R. CHITRAKAR: Threat perception in online anti-migrant speech: A Slovene case study
of 2015 and the beginning of 2016 (Kogovšek Šalamon, 2017), demanding a 
large-scale, concerted response from the European Union and its member 
states. Countries along the route leading to preferred destinations (Germa-
ny or other Western and Northern European countries) were particularly 
affected, having to provide safe passage as well as the necessary administra-
tive facilities and reception infrastructure to accommodate large numbers of 
arrivals. For Slovenia, the turning point came when Hungarian authorities 
decided to prevent migrants from boarding trains and continuing their jour-
ney toward Austria and Germany and, ultimately, closed the country’s borders 
with Serbia and Croatia (BBC, 2015). With Hungary securing its borders and 
Croatia unwilling to accept returns, the migrants’ path was rerouted through 
Slovenia, placing it within the newly established humanitarian corridor, in op-
eration from October 2015 until March the next year. The countries along the 
Western Balkan Route, running through Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, 
and Slovenia to Austria and Germany, had to provide transport, food, shelter 
and medical assistance to migrants in transition, which put a significant strain 
on their capacities and resources. 
Officials, the civil society and humanitarian organizations all contributed to 
managing the situation by providing staff, facilities and logistical support 
(Ladić & Vučko, 2016). However, due to exceptionally high numbers of mi-
grants arriving at the time, it became evident that these countries were large-
ly underprepared and not able to rely on an adequate response mechanism 
to deal with these exceptional circumstances. Migrants were often met with 
increasingly difficult conditions, having to face long waits in overcrowded 
and poorly managed ad hoc reception centers and fenced off camps. Living 
conditions in these areas were at times bad enough to threaten their survival 
en route and could, in the worst cases, be interpreted as a clear violation of 
human rights. The corridor continued to be in operation until March 2016, 
when Turkey, within the framework of the EU-Turkey Statement (European 
Council, 2016), started opening its labor market to Syrians under temporary 
protection, accepted a large investment into its refugee reception facilities, 
and agreed to rapid returns of migrants declared ineligible for international 
protection. These measures led to the decrease in the use and gradual phas-
ing out of the corridor, with the remaining groups of migrants applying for 
68 69
Slovenščina 2.0, 2020 (1)
asylum. Nationals from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan (SIA) were granted spe-
cial status, while others, undocumented SIA citizens included, encountered 
less favorable conditions and were not allowed to proceed with their journey 
(Kogovšek Šalamon, 2017, p. 260). Because of widespread concerns over 
the authorities’ ability to manage the migrant situation and rising tensions 
in refugee hotspots, at times resulting in violent altercations and material 
damage, the Slovene media extensively covered this issue. Continuous expo-
sure in conjunction with Parliamentary debates and various civil initiatives, 
such as awareness raising campaigns, framed the general public discourse. 
The exchange of opinions was particularly intense in social media, where 
Twitter and Facebook were permeated with argumentative and oppositional 
discourse. The social media platforms were transformed into a repository of 
different forms of socially unacceptable discourse (SUD), ranging from the 
more implicitly offensive and discriminative comments to overtly threatening 
hate speech and incitation to violence. 
This article aims to examine and describe some of the ways in which migrants 
and refugees are perceived in socially unacceptable discourse in Slovenia. The 
basis for this discussion will be the assumption that participants in anti-mi-
grant online discourse mostly act and react out of a sense of fear or threat 
linked to the presence of migrants directly, or to the presumed negative effects 
of migration as a phenomenon in general. To support this claim, we will rely 
on the principles of critical discourse analysis (van Dijk, 2001), a theoretical 
framework for describing how social dominance and relations are asserted 
through language use. The role of discourse in establishing social inequali-
ty and maintaining the distribution and reproduction of power (Fairclough, 
2001) has already been amply discussed and demonstrated. As an approach, 
combining corpus studies, based on extensive datasets of actual language use, 
with critical discourse analysis (CDA) has proven to be efficient in researching 
discursive features (Baker, 2008), which is especially relevant when analyzing 
discourse aimed at vulnerable groups, such as migrants and asylum seekers.
According to Hatebase, a large database of multilingual hate speech, extreme 
forms of SUD most frequently target individuals on the basis of their1 1) eth-
nicity, 2) nationality, and 3) religion (Sindoni, 2018, p. 270). This finding 
1 In order of importance.
69
R. CHITRAKAR: Threat perception in online anti-migrant speech: A Slovene case study
places refugees and migrants in the context of the European migration crisis 
(for example Arab, Syrian, Muslim) among those most likely to find them-
selves at the center of discrimination, exclusion, and socially unacceptable 
discourse. Computer-mediated communication (CMC), interactional dis-
course retrieved from social media genres including popular social networks 
(Beißwenger, Horsmann & Zesch, 2018), represents an important segment 
of language use that significantly contributes to the formation of new social 
practices and accepted concepts of normality, within the confines of which 
traditional meanings and established power relations are maintained and 
consolidated (Gorjanc & Fišer, 2018; Gorjanc & Fišer, 2020). This study 
will attempt to provide some insight into how online socially unacceptable 
discourse, as an important component of increasingly present discrimina-
tive and exclusive attitudes, forms the perceived identity of refugees and 
migrants in Slovene society. 
2 R E L A T E D R E S E A R C H
Research dealing with the issue of SUD directed at migrants, either on the 
level of conflict-driven migrations in general (Baker & McEnery, 2005; Wodak 
& Boukala, 2015) or within the specific context of Slovenia and its role in the 
European migration crisis (Erjavec & Kovačič, 2012; Ladić & Vučko, 2016; 
Vezovnik, 2017; Vehovar et al., 2020), already points out some of the prev-
alent features of anti-migrant speech that are likely to occur during analysis. 
From the point of view of threat construction and reproduction, various forms 
of negative portrayal of migrants as a distinctive social group by means of 
risk-related framing, othering, dehumanization, and vilification will be at the 
forefront of our attention. 
Framing, a process by which the media and other influential discursive agents 
(e.g. political actors) emphasize a certain aspect of reality (Keren, 2011), is 
employed to establish specific meanings and ways of interpreting issues or 
events, such as the arrival of migrants. This is an important factor that plays 
a crucial role in predetermining the tone of discussion and, as certainly is the 
case with migrants in Slovenia, provides fertile grounds for SUD to develop 
and prosper. By focusing on a certain subject and consistently framing it in 
terms of risk and danger, discursive agents can already set the main themes 
70 71
Slovenščina 2.0, 2020 (1)
around which SUD will revolve. Negative representations of migrants in me-
dia are common, and their portrayal as a threat to society is typically shaped 
along several main argumentative lines. Innes (2010), examining the framing 
and perception of asylum seekers in British media narratives, recognizes three 
distinct categories of threat: 1) physical threat to society and its members, 
formulated in terms of sovereignty and security, 2) economic threat, wherein 
migrants are shown as undermining or exploiting social welfare, and 3) cul-
tural threat, related to endangering and eroding social and cultural values. 
In order to legitimize the construction of threat in socially unacceptable 
discourse, a clear distinction is made between the group presented as the 
threat and the group believed to be threatened. This is largely achieved by 
establishing an us/them opposition, where a rhetoric of exclusion is em-
ployed to delimit a European us from the non-European other (Wodak & 
Boukala, 2015). The first is usually represented as the potential victim, while 
the latter is portrayed as the probable offender to whom an infinite number 
of negative qualifiers and characteristics may be ascribed. Within various 
mechanisms of othering, migrants and refugees are commonly conflated 
into the out-group, culturally dissimilar from the host society and politicized 
as an invasive element that should be feared and distrusted (Huysmans, 
2006). In addition, the process of social categorization, reinforced through 
language used in social media, effectively contributes to solidifying ideas of 
in-group homogeneity and solidarity between those under presumed threat 
(Waldron, 2012). 
The negative representation of migrants should also be viewed in the context 
of securitization (Buzan et al., 1998), where critical discourse analysis can be 
used as a tool to explore the textual mechanisms behind the perception of mi-
grants as a security threat. Discussing the media representation of migrants as 
a security threat in Slovene public discourse, Vezovnik (2017, p. 48) points out 
the common phenomenon of dividing arrivals to Slovenia into the categories 
of the genuine and the bogus, a clear example of a discursive attempt to crim-
inalize refugees by turning them into subjects deserving increased suspicion. 
She also emphasizes that references to securitization on the Slovene-Croatian 
border could be interpreted as an indication of how talk about protection and 
defense may lead to actual security actions (2017, p. 50). 
71
R. CHITRAKAR: Threat perception in online anti-migrant speech: A Slovene case study
Another function of extreme forms of socially unacceptable discourse is 
to degrade and dehumanize target individuals or groups, stripping them of 
human characteristics that would generally warrant empathy and solidarity. 
When, for example, migrants are portrayed not as human individuals, but as 
an unfeeling personification of a natural disaster on a collision course with 
the host society, harsh and decisive counter-measures may seem much more 
acceptable. Similarly, the notion of mass, as often deployed in SUD, can be 
used as an effective discursive strategy. Van Dijk (1991) refers to the aggrega-
tion technique, by way of which the targeted group of discourse participants 
is objectified and treated as statistics. The use of numbers and figures as a 
discursive tool has a double effect; it gives the impression of neutrality, of 
merely reporting the factual truth, while social groups represented in the form 
of aggregated data or numbers can easily create the sense of too many (Ve-
zovnik, 2017, p. 47). 
The examples stated above are among some of the common features pres-
ent in anti-migrant discourse that this study will attempt to highlight. In the 
framework of critical discourse analysis, examples of SUD and hate speech of-
fer abundant material for criticism and discussion. One of the principle goals 
of such research is to expose and condemn the construction of discriminative 
and exclusive discursive practices that can, in the worst of cases, lead to vi-
olence against targeted groups and individuals. However, an additional aim 
of this article is to gain a deeper understanding of the root causes for the de-
velopment and reinforcement of such practices. As suggested by Erjavec and 
Kovačič (2012), it is also important to focus on the individuals who produce 
SUD and hate speech in the attempt to understand their motivations for in-
citing hatred. By doing so, we might be able to move away from the individual 
conflicts and opposition between social actors and groups participating in the 
argument, and gain insight into some of the broader, systemic issues that lie 
underneath.  
3 R E S E A R C H C O N T E X T A N D M E T H O D O L O G Y
Before describing the methodological approach applied to dataset selection 
and analysis in this study, a more general presentation of the research context 
should be given. This work is part of a wider, comprehensive project examining 
72 73
Slovenščina 2.0, 2020 (1)
the issue of socially unacceptable discourse in a multidisciplinary framework 
combining corpus linguistics, CDA, legal analysis and sociological survey 
methods (Fišer et al., 2017). With a view to researching the construction, use 
and perception of SUD in a multifaceted sociocultural context, the project part-
ners (the Department of Knowledge Technologies at the Jožef Stefan Institute, 
the Faculty of Arts, the Faculty of Social Science, and the Peace Institute, all 
in Ljubljana) developed large corpora of computer-mediated communication 
(CMC) and SUD, focusing on social media and online networking sites. As 
textual forms of CMC offer easily accessible and downloadable language data, 
they were chosen as the basis for an interdisciplinary sociolinguistic analysis. 
In the case of the SUD corpus, a list of Facebook groups in which such forms 
of speech frequently occur was compiled and used as a source for harvesting 
targeted data that would be included in the final dataset. After identifying the 
most visited Slovene mainstream media websites (24ur.com, SiOL.net.Nov-
ice, and Nova24TV), their Facebook pages were selected for inclusion in the 
repository of SUD comments. 
The crucial phase before any analysis could take place was to produce an 
annotation schema and guidelines, according to which the type and target 
of socially unacceptable discourse could be determined. A two-dimensional 
typology was developed, taking into account six types of SUD and five targets 
at which SUD is directed (Ljubešić et al., 2019, p. 4). In relation to this study, 
SUD could be perceived as (1) aimed at migrants, (2) aimed at individuals 
or groups related to migrants, (3) aimed at media or journalists, (4) aimed 
at other commenters participating in the discussion thread, or (5) aimed at 
someone else. In terms of type, the main distinctions in annotating individual 
comments were made when determining whether (YES/NO) SUD was aimed 
at background (e.g. religion, ethnicity), or other groups/individuals, and 
whether it contained elements of violence. A manual annotation campaign 
was carried out after specific training was given to a select group of annotators 
(Ljubešić et al., 2019, p. 5) to ensure the best possible level of consistency and 
consensus in the results acquired. In the next phase, an in-depth analysis of 
the manually annotated dataset was performed, highlighting several findings 
relevant to this study. Perhaps the most revealing conclusions came from an 
overview of annotation distribution, which showed that only about half of 
73
R. CHITRAKAR: Threat perception in online anti-migrant speech: A Slovene case study
the annotated comments were classified as socially acceptable, a low number 
in the context of a public discussion. One of the conclusions that could be 
considered especially alarming pointed out that SUD inciting violence toward 
migrants was present in seven percent of annotations (Ljubešić et al., 2019, p. 
8). This confirms the potential harmfulness of SUD as a form of widespread 
discursive practice that needs to be thoroughly researched and continually 
brought to the attention of regulatory actors and the general public alike.
In the second stage of annotation, the dataset was adapted specifically to the 
aims of this study, which required focusing predominantly on the anti-migrant 
component of socially unacceptable discourse. This entailed narrowing down 
the initial dataset pertaining to the general topic of migrants by reducing it to 
those comments where migrants were directly or indirectly targeted. In other 
words, comments in which SUD was aimed at media, other participants in the 
discussion thread, or someone else entirely, were deleted from the annotated 
dataset to be used for subsequent analysis. As the principal subject of this 
study was to analyze how negative and discriminatory perception of migrants 
was constructed and reproduced by anti-migrant commenters, it seemed rel-
evant to create a clear opposition between the in-group and the out-group by 
excluding other actors who entered the discourse dynamic in a more com-
plementary way. The final dataset contained three possible combinations 
of annotated comments: (1) comments referring to background, aimed at 
migrants, using offensive language, (2) comments referring to background, 
aimed at migrants, inciting violence, and (3) comments referring to others, 
using offensive language, related to migrants. 
4 A N A L Y S I S A N D R E S U L T S
After the comments relevant to this study were selected and annotated, a pre-
liminary qualitative analysis was performed to obtain a general sense of how 
SUD aimed at migrants was reflected in language use and the argumentative 
strategies employed. This proved to be a critical moment in the study, as it 
determined the direction of the adopted approach. The principal observation 
that became apparent during the first analysis of the selected comments was 
that SUD targeting migrants could indeed be identified as a form of response 
to various, recurring types of threat perceived by discourse participants. The 
74 75
Slovenščina 2.0, 2020 (1)
comments that contained an argumentative element, as opposed to being 
purely offensive or inciting violence, could all be grouped according to several 
major topics repeated throughout the threads. After completing the analy-
sis which focused on the different types of threat perception reflected in the 
comments, the following major categories were identified: (1) physical threat, 
(2) threat of Islamization, (3) threat of infiltration, (4) economic threat, (5) 
sociocultural threat, and (6) referential threat.
Another round of annotation was now performed to indicate the category of 
threat perception that each of the comments belonged to. This was done by an 
individual annotator (the author of this paper) with the purpose of facilitating 
a more detailed qualitative analysis. In addition to enabling a more systematic 
approach to examining anti-migrant SUD by grouping the comments into more 
or less distinctive themes, this method also made it possible to obtain a general 
overview of their distribution. First, a comparison was made between com-
ments that contained a mention of threat perception related to migrants, and 
comments that contained no such reference. The latter were examples of purely 
offensive comments, hate speech, or outright incitation to violence against mi-
grants, and had no argumentative value. Considering the fact that SUD in which 
threat perception was identified is divided into six additional categories, this 
indicates a significant prevalence of comments (nearly half) where no reason or 
justification for rejecting or targeting migrants is provided or deemed necessary.
Table 1: Percentage of threat perception identified in SUD
SUD, threat perception identified SUD, threat perception not identified
58 % 42 %
This was followed by a breakdown of different categories of threat perception 
in terms of distribution, yielding the following results:
Table 2: Breakdown of threat perception categories
Physical threat 33 %
Threat of Islamization 22 %
Threat of infiltration 19 %
Economic threat 14 %
Sociocultural threat 7 %
Referential threat 5 %
75
R. CHITRAKAR: Threat perception in online anti-migrant speech: A Slovene case study
It should be noted that these results are of indicative nature, as additional an-
notation was only carried out by one person and the quantitative distribution 
of individual themes was, to a certain extent, predetermined by the content 
of posts to which commenters were responding. However, some of the topics 
identified in this case study have proven to be prevalent throughout the threads 
analyzed. Viewing migrants as a potential physical threat was clearly the main 
concern for most of the commenters participating in the discussion. The fear of 
imminent danger in the form of physical violation or even death is, perhaps not 
surprisingly, much greater than, for example, anxieties related to the possibility 
of sociocultural disruption. The threat of Islamization and the threat of infiltra-
tion, at times overlapping and appearing within the same comment, seem to 
carry comparable weight. On the following pages, a more detailed description 
of individual categories, with examples taken from the analyzed threads, will be 
given to highlight the diverse discursive strategies and approaches to portraying 
migrants as a form of threat in socially unacceptable discourse.
5 DESCRIPTION OF IDENTIFIED THREAT CATEGORIES
5.1 Physical threat
The most easily identifiable and largest category of threat, directly attribut-
ed to the arrival of refugees and migrants, reflected the commenters’ fear of 
material damage, outbreaks of violence, violation of physical integrity and, 
ultimately, death. The potential of physical danger underlying negative atti-
tudes to migration elicited the most emotional and violent responses. In the 
context of the Slovene migration crisis, commenters often alluded to the need 
to regain control over an out-of-hand situation to protect themselves and, 
perhaps more importantly, their families. Women and children, in particular, 
were singled out as the most vulnerable group in need of protection. To sup-
port and justify these concerns, commenters often resorted to citing recent 
events, such as cases of rape and violence reported in relation to migrants, 
mediatized across Europe. Western, non-Muslim women were claimed to be 
most exposed to possible physical attacks by refugees and migrants, as they 
were considered most likely to present an affront to the Muslim faith.
The safety of public spaces where migrants were now a growing presence was 
also called into question, especially in terms of limited freedom of movement 
76 77
Slovenščina 2.0, 2020 (1)
and obstacles to the established way of life (not being able to go out at night). 
Generally speaking, in a post 9/11 world and in the light of terrorist attacks 
occurring across Europe (the Paris attacks, what happened in Brussels), refu-
gees and migrants as the out-group were identified with terrorists, criminals, 
savages, aggressors, extremists, combatants, jihadists, hooligans, and ISIS. 
The visual portrayal of migrants in the media also played an important role in 
forming the general perception of physical threat. Commenters often referred 
to the fact that newspaper images and televised footage showed groups of 
strong, combat-ready, young, 16-45 year old men, which likely contributed 
to establishing associative links with organized units, military stratagems and 
planned invasion.
Preference for the visual framing of refugees as a threat was most evident in 
graphic references to scenes of extreme violence, mentioning decapitation, 
throats cut, bombs exploding, stoning, and child bombers, among others. 
Extremist iconography specific to acts of terrorism and war (black flags, Kal-
ashnikovs, beards, shouts of Allahu Akbar) was frequently used to evoke a 
sense of dread at the arrival of Muslim population. Also on the symbolic level, 
important landmarks of the Muslim community in Europe were given nega-
tive connotations. Mosques and Muslim cultural spaces, for example, were as-
sociated with terrorist training centers and images of children cutting heads 
off teddy bears. Another aspect of physical threat that was widely referred to 
were alleged health hazards and security risks associated with the arrival of 
refugees to Europe. This was in line with similar discursive approaches aimed 
at dehumanizing migrants who were, in this case, depicted as carriers of dis-
ease, dirty, defecating in the streets, leaving trash everywhere, and even as a 
cancer, ready to metastasize across Europe.
The perception of physical threat also established the parameters of internal 
dispute present throughout the threads analyzed. The main argumentative 
opposition was created between those who categorically rejected refugees and 
those who defended them, namely pro-migrant activists who participated in 
protest rallies and welcomed migrants at the borders. The latter were seen as 
facilitators in the process of migration, and as such an important part of the 
problem (idiots, traitors) that, much like refugees, needed to be eradicated. 
Interestingly, this opposition also encouraged the usual antagonism between 
77
R. CHITRAKAR: Threat perception in online anti-migrant speech: A Slovene case study
the center (Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia) and the periphery, the center 
generally being seen as more liberal and supportive of migrant integration.  In 
addition, the government and political actors were blamed for failing to ad-
equately address national security concerns and putting the country and its 
citizens at risk by helping the enemy. Throughout the threads, commenters 
emphasized their concerns over the potential physical threat posed by refu-
gees by calling on the government to protect their own. Along with the an-
ti-migrant public, pro-migrant activists, and the media, government actors 
formed the discursive frame for the entire discussion.
5.2 Threat of Islamization
The next major topic that emerged from examining the comments for iden-
tifiable types of threat perception was centered on Islamization. In this case, 
migrants were perceived as the driving force of a potential Muslim invasion 
of Europe. In certain regards, this category of threat perception overlapped 
with the fear of physical harm, but this was conveyed indirectly, by referring 
to religion. The Muslim faith was portrayed as the basis for extremist violence 
and terrorism, giving migrants and refugees a license to kill, break our laws 
because their religion tells them to, or enforce their religion. Commenters 
also resorted to quoting decontextualized parts of the Qur’an to illustrate 
Muslim migrants’ intentions. This proved to be a popular argumentative 
strategy, supposedly providing proof that needs no further explanation, but 
speaks for itself. Again, the threat to the European way of life was placed 
in the foreground (ex. not being able to eat pork), with women repeatedly 
mentioned as the primary victims, especially in terms of losing rights and 
diminished equality. 
The concept of invasion was at the core of the discussion. Most of the fears re-
volved around migrants invading our homes, taking our property, or taking 
the throne, a process through which Europeans would become subjugated, 
even enslaved under the Muslim rule. This hypothetical invasion of Europe 
was characterized as calculated and planned, as a gradual transformation in 
a grand scheme of global domination, implemented methodically and sys-
tematically through the construction of mosques and Muslim schools, as well 
as the spread of Muslim ghettos. Some commenters claimed that one of the 
78 79
Slovenščina 2.0, 2020 (1)
main threats associated with migration from Muslim countries would be sub-
stitution. This would occur on several levels, a logic according to which the 
Constitution would be replaced with Sharia law, universities with madrasas 
and women’s skirts with headscarves.
Conspiratorial undertones were present throughout this segment of discussion 
with theories proposed of Arab countries financing or bribing the authorities 
to allow invasion as a form of neocolonialism that would eventually lead to the 
destruction of European cities. Referring to historical experience was also one 
of the favored lines of argumentation, aimed at reducing the Muslim popula-
tion to the role of invader within the context of an envisioned large-scale clash 
of civilizations (they have always been the enemy, What did our forefathers 
fight for?). Cautionary examples were also provided, with allusions, for in-
stance, to the French who opened their doors and are now the minority, with 
64 % of schoolchildren being Muslim.
This brings us to the question of statistics, often provided as argumentative 
evidence in favor of the validity and credibility of posted comments. Com-
menters opposing the arrival of refugees seemed to have a wide array of nu-
merical data at their disposal whenever they needed to illustrate the severity of 
the migrant situation. However, when these statistics are not supported with 
a clear reference to their source, one has to wonder about their veracity. It is 
important to note that such data, tailored to fit a specific purpose and some-
times even altogether invented, can serve as an effective discursive device (van 
Dijk, 1991). When it comes to constructing threat as a means to legitimate 
socially unacceptable discourse, describing a situation where  10 000, 20 000, 
or 50 000 refugees are crossing the border into a small and underprepared 
European country can paint a convincing picture.
In fact, responding to the threat or fear of invasion is often related to various 
ways of interpreting and expressing the central notion of mass. When discuss-
ing the issue of mass migration in terms of amount, commenters tended to 
highlight the omnipresence and multitude of migrants who, in their opinion, 
were everywhere, on our front lawns, in the fields, around our houses, and in 
great numbers, hordes that would eventually run us over. Parallels were fre-
quently drawn between migrants and natural disasters, typically in the form 
of metaphors of water flow, calling our attention to the risk of drowning or 
79
R. CHITRAKAR: Threat perception in online anti-migrant speech: A Slovene case study
becoming submerged, overflown and, conversely, to the necessity of building 
a dam, stemming the flow. Other dehumanizing comments, related to the 
threat of mass invasion, portrayed migrants as an infestation (vermin, rats) 
or an epidemic (plague), and even expanded to legal interpretations of the 
EU provisions on family reunification (Council Directive 2003/86/EC), which 
might enable migrants to abuse rules in order to multiply.
5.3 Threat of infiltration
The threat of invasion in the context of migration often presupposes an act 
of infiltration committed by members of the out-group. This was identified 
as the next category of threat perception within which the status of refugees 
is constantly questioned or, in most cases of anti-migrant speech, altogeth-
er rejected. The logic of undermining the status of migrants escaping areas 
of war and conflict is based on the imperative that only individuals who can 
be classified as refugees according to international law are deserving of help. 
Immediately, this precept introduces the hypothetical possibility, and conse-
quently threat, of persons willing to abuse such legal provisions and attempt 
to enter a country as fake refugees. To add an additional layer of complexity, 
the issue of identifying and correctly using the notion of refugee, as compared 
to migrant, immigrant and emigrant, seems to cause a fair amount of con-
fusion in public discussions, as these terms are often used interchangeably, 
without discerning relevant semantic nuances. That aside, the most frequent-
ly used discursive technique commenters applied to dealing with the threat 
of potential infiltrators almost invariably followed the formulaic They are not 
refugees, they are... The blank space would then be filled with any number 
of qualifiers readily available to discredit the status and intentions of refu-
gees, among which the most common were terrorists, criminals, economic 
migrants, opportunists, cowards, traitors, and fake, so-called, illegal or 
quasi- refugees.
Migrants were generally subjected to a form of group profiling, especially 
on the grounds of the images shown in mainstream media as well as other, 
alternative sources of information. For example, the repeatedly emphasized 
image of mostly male, young, combat-ready, healthy, strong men was quite 
evidently used to insinuate that migrants were to be treated as a threatening 
80 81
Slovenščina 2.0, 2020 (1)
new presence with a hidden, sinister agenda. Determining migrants’ age and 
sex was mentioned as the crucial stage when screening for potentially trust-
worthy refugees. Again, the risk of persons attempting to abuse established 
legal provisions, such as the frequently cited unaccompanied minors clause 
(Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), was 
brought to the foreground with accusations of migrants lying about their age 
and references to bearded children. Another argument that was used to un-
dermine refugees’ credibility was directed purely at personal appearance; the 
idea of war refugees still seems to be visually rooted in images of starvation 
and torn clothing, as opposed to nice clothes and expensive smartphones. 
Throughout the timeline of the posted threads, media reports provided con-
tinuous support for rejecting refugees. The newcomers’ unwillingness or 
inability to present acceptable identification as proof of their status, a pre-
condition for assistance and possible entry, was a particularly salient point (If 
they really are refugees, why won’t they prove it?). In general, the behavior 
of migrants during the reception and identification procedure at the borders 
was extensively covered by the Slovene media and closely scrutinized by the 
public. When questioning the status and eligibility of migrants as a group, 
commenters relied on specific, widely mediatized events showing individuals 
refusing assistance (Slovenske novice, 2015). Rejecting food and clothes, for 
example, was perceived as ungrateful, in turn supporting the claim that mi-
grants did not deserve to be helped. It was also made clear that refugees were 
not expected to complain or make demands, and should be content with any 
kind of assistance offered. 
The migrants’ demands to choose their country of destination were heavily 
criticized, but sparked a curious and almost contradictory discussion in which 
commenters were rejecting their credibility while, at the same time, struggling 
with feelings of wounded pride (We don’t want them, but why won’t they 
stay?). This line of argumentation (Ladić & Vučko, 2016) was also comple-
mented by the first safe country principle (Regulation 604/2013/EU of the 
European Parliament and of the Council), according to which refugees were 
expected to seek asylum as soon as they escaped danger, and not to contin-
ue travelling in search of a better life. Even when the status of refugees was 
recognized, attempts were made to undermine their character. In this case, 
81
R. CHITRAKAR: Threat perception in online anti-migrant speech: A Slovene case study
migrants and refugees were portrayed as cowards, deserters, or traitors who 
gave up their homeland without a fight, and left their elderly and women 
behind. Within this category of threat perception, a significant amount of 
distrust was also aimed at the media, who were accused of intentionally por-
traying migrants as a vulnerable group, in need of help. Commenters were 
particularly active in highlighting the media’s agenda of manipulating the 
public opinion by selective reporting, only displaying certain content while 
covering up the negative. This is an interesting claim, especially considering 
the fact that anti-migrant commenters have a clearly ambivalent and selective 
relationship with media, whose information can be used or discarded at will, 
according to discursive needs.
5.4 Economic threat
The following category of threat perception was based on rejecting the status of 
refugees who were generally labeled as economic migrants, in order to empha-
size what commenters believed to be the true nature and purpose of migration. 
Even though migrants and refugees remained the nominal target of socially 
unacceptable discourse within this topic, in comparison with the other recur-
rent themes, the argumentation provided here was much more a reflection of 
the commenters’ discontent with the general economic situation. The issue of 
poverty in Slovenia seemed to be at the core of commenters’ concerns, point-
ing out that while our children are hungry and parents aren’t able to afford 
school meals, refugees could not be treated as a priority. Personal struggles (I 
can barely make it through the month myself...) and the added fear of having 
to provide for refugees’ subsistence could be seen as a decisive factor in refusing 
to accept migrants. In this context, political actors were singled out as the main 
culprits responsible for the failing economy, and the government was accused of 
not providing for their own citizens while giving more benefits to refugees than 
to Slovenes. The media attention given to refugees was also a sore spot (When 
have they ever cared about us, talked about our problems?) and, in response, 
vulnerable members of the in-group, i.e. Slovene citizens, were prioritized (the 
children, the elderly, the unemployed, the indebted).
The presence of refugees was perceived as a potential impediment to improv-
ing the economic situation as well as a burden to the social welfare system that 
82 83
Slovenščina 2.0, 2020 (1)
could find itself at risk if the State needed to provide for migrants. The willing-
ness to accept and integrate refugees was generally equated with transferring 
funds from social welfare to migration policy, for example from child support 
and schooling to refugee reception facilities. A strong sense of ownership over 
the way the national budget was employed in dealing with migration was also 
expressed, further stressing the imminence of the supposed threat (taxpayers’ 
money, our money, money from our pockets). Among the comments directly 
targeting migrants as agents of possible economic ruin, many were directed at 
portraying them as lazy, not willing to work for their money, or not used to 
work, with frequent insinuations about an alleged growing criminal presence 
(thieves). Commenters also resorted to dehumanizing strategies within this 
segment of anti-migrant speech, mostly by referring to the burden of having 
to feed these so-called refugees or leeches, and insisted on shifting financial 
responsibility for doing so to those willing to help (namely pro-migrant activ-
ists and politicians).
5.5 Sociocultural threat
When discussing the perception of migrants and refugees as a sociocultural 
threat in Slovenia, we will be focusing on how migratory flows were seen and 
presented as a disruptive force in the societal and cultural landscape. The start-
ing point of argumentation within this category of threat perception was the 
assumption that refugees and migrants were unwilling or unable to integrate 
with the host society. Among the principal claims propagated by commenters 
was the categorical statement that migrants are not capable of respecting 
our legal order and would try to enforce their order and traditions. General 
judgments, such as they’re not good at integrating, were highlighted as an 
accepted truth, supported by references to migrants’ insistence on pursuing 
a completely different lifestyle (wearing headscarves in public, for example).
Constructing the image of out-group inferiority was another popular discur-
sive strategy. The alleged difficulty in integrating migrants was, for instance, 
attributed to their not speaking English, not being educated or not being able 
to understand our laws, our ways. To reinforce the validity of this negative 
image, commenters referred to past experiences with refugees, some of who 
have lived here for decades and still haven’t learned to speak a word of 
83
R. CHITRAKAR: Threat perception in online anti-migrant speech: A Slovene case study
Slovene. Where refugees and migrants were given an active role in terms of 
responsibility for integrating, the discussion was deeply anchored in the par-
adigm of a host-guest dynamic, according to which they should try to adapt, 
should be respectful and should not get too comfortable. In a reversal of roles, 
a much more positive light was shed on members of the in-group who would 
accept their rules and their culture if they were in their place, setting an ex-
ample of proper behavior.
A clear conditionality was attached to the possibility of welcoming refugees 
and migrants, with commenters stating they would be willing to accept them 
if they gave up their ways and lived according to our rules. This could, how-
ever, prove to be a difficult condition to fulfill, as it implies the necessity of 
migrants discarding their identity in order to erase their otherness. Some-
times the fear of otherness, as reflected in the comments analyzed, was of 
purely superficial nature, and migrants were perceived as a foreign element 
with which contact was undesirable and difficult to imagine (women dressed 
like mummies sitting in my living room). On the other hand, the difficulty of 
including and integrating migrants in the host society was viewed as an inher-
ent and unchangeable part of the problematic itself. Clear lines of separation 
were drawn to demonstrate the incompatibility of migrants with the Slovene 
society and culture, by emphasizing the inevitable clash between mentalities 
and, in particular, religions (Islam does not allow for integration). 
Integration in the context of religious identity was also seen as improbable 
due to migrants’ supposed isolationism, their tendency to function exclusive-
ly within family units, closed communities, or Muslim ghettoes, and build 
their own environment (mosques, schools, media) instead of adapting. With 
this, the logic underlying the various claims of dangers contained in possible 
non-integration came full circle; the failure to integrate migrants and refugees 
could lead to their marginalization, which could in turn foster feelings of dis-
content and resentment, ultimately leading to physical retribution. Perhaps to 
alleviate the overarching sentiment of xenophobia, a curious comparison was 
made to Bosnian refugees that arrived to Slovenia during the Yugoslav Wars. 
Despite well-known discriminative and prejudiced attitudes against Yugo-
slav immigrants, particularly pronounced at the time, but still present today, 
they were now portrayed as model refugees, acceptable due to linguistic and 
84 85
Slovenščina 2.0, 2020 (1)
geographic proximity, not savages but civilized like us. As a more appropriate 
solution, commenters suggested that migrants who were too different should 
instead head to neighboring countries where the way of life is similar and it’s 
easier for them to integrate.
5.6 Referential threat
As opposed to other identified groups of threat perception, the final category 
examined was related to migrants and refugees indirectly, usually by provid-
ing links to other articles and videos, by quoting influential figures (Gaddafi 
said..., An interesting quote by Geert Wilders...), or by explicitly referring to 
media as the incontestable source of information. The formulation of socially 
unacceptable discourse through various means of reference is a particularly 
interesting phenomenon. Here, the commenter is not the immediate source of 
the content given, nor does she explicitly agree with the content referred to. In 
the case of The answer is clear ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZbCK95Zu_0, 
or This video says it all ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2rmA9A7CEM, the 
analyst is required to proceed with a second phase of examination to veri-
fy the nature of the comment. Of course, other links may be explicit enough 
as to their aim and content without much further investigation, for example 
This is what I thought: http://pamelageller.com/2015/09/document-muslim-migrants-
raping-women-and-children-in-camp-in-germany.html/ or And this: http://vladtepesblog.
com/2015/09/12/rape-and-forced-prostitution-common-in-muslim-refugee-camps-in-germa-
ny/, giving a clear enough indication of the statement contained. 
Whether a link was sufficiently descriptive or required the implications of its 
contents to be deduced from a broader discursive context, the common de-
nominator underlying this form of socially unacceptable discourse was most 
evident in the shift to a more personal level of commenting. Commenters were 
now referring to specific, heavily mediatized images and situations, and were 
speaking directly against subjects in photographs and videos, viewed as the 
main actors personifying the encroaching threat of migration. Audiovisual 
content was appended as self-evident truth, entirely exempt of critical thought 
(We all saw on TV... Watch the footage...), and provided a readily available 
opportunity to reinforce solidarity between like-minded commenters who 
could simply voice their agreement (I agree, exactly right, well put).
85
R. CHITRAKAR: Threat perception in online anti-migrant speech: A Slovene case study
In addition to being a communicative facilitator and an effective argumenta-
tive strategy, establishing threat by way of reference also functioned as a tool 
of empowerment, specifically when opposing mainstream media or pro-mi-
grant activists. When the need to bolster a personal opinion arose, comment-
ers could readily access and select information, according to their discursive 
needs (Just GOOGLE it!). In and of itself, taking personal initiative in gath-
ering information is by no means problematic and can indeed contribute to 
a better grasp of a multifaceted subject, such as migration. However, in the 
context of socially unacceptable discourse, the tendency to decontextualize 
facts and information most often only serves the creation and reproduction of 
potentially harmful biases.
6 D I S C U S S I O N
The qualitative analysis of comments in Slovene social media, carried out 
within the framework of this case study, has confirmed the importance of 
the perception of refugees and migrants as a threat in the formation, con-
solidation, and reproduction of socially unacceptable discourse. Examining 
the discursive mechanisms and strategies underlying this practice provides 
insight into the various motivations for anti-migrant speech. It also reveals 
how key discursive actors, such as politicians and the media, contribute to 
the construction of the targeted out-group as a threat, by relying on narrative 
framing that effectively elicits feelings of fear that are often at the root of social 
exclusion, discrimination, and rejection.
The recurrent topics that are central to anti-migrant speech in Slovene online 
discourse have made it possible to identify several categories of threat per-
ception, within which commenters typically present arguments to justify or 
legitimize their rejection of refugees and migrants. In order of importance, 
migrants and refugees were perceived as presenting a threat in the form of 
(1) physical danger, (2) Islamization, (3) infiltration, (4) economic burden, 
and (5) sociocultural disruption, with an additional category of (6) referential 
threat also identified to take into account arguments presented indirectly, by 
way of reference.
The quantitative distribution of comments according to different threat cate-
gories, although indicative and case specific, implies that the fear of physical 
86 87
Slovenščina 2.0, 2020 (1)
harm is at the forefront of motivations underlying the negative and discrimi-
native attitudes against refugees and migrants, as reflected in SUD. This shows 
that the direct threat associated with the presence of migrants and refugees 
takes precedence over other, more abstract concerns, such as the potential for 
sociocultural disruption. The noticeable prevalence of the sense of physical 
threat among anti-migrant commenters would also be in line with the media’s 
negative framing of the migration phenomenon, as well as the enhanced secu-
ritization at the political level. 
This leads to questions about a possible feedback loop between different, 
multi-level types of responses that can perpetuate negative and exclusive 
attitudes against members of an out-group. Considering the fact that most 
of the examples of SUD found in online comments follow a similar argumen-
tative logic and employ well-known and predictable discursive techniques, 
it is not difficult to imagine the automatization of anti-migrant speech in 
computer-mediated communication. As this presents an increased potential 
for spreading and reproducing harmful SUD and hate speech, adequate re-
sponses should be developed and implemented by policy-makers and social 
media platforms alike. 
This is, of course, a complex legal issue, inseparably intertwined with the prin-
ciples of fundamental freedoms, privacy and the rule of law, so finding a bal-
anced solution would require a comprehensive multi-disciplinary approach. 
In terms of raising public awareness, CDA and other forms of sociolinguistic 
analysis should attempt to highlight the need to question some of the argu-
ments presented, especially when stated as facts or accepted truths, relying on 
unverified statistical support and external references so freely given as “evi-
dence”. Such studies could also lead to a more thorough discussion about the 
issue of attributing and accepting social accountability for discriminative and 
exclusive practices in the context of public discourse. 
In addition to the important role played by those wielding discursive power, 
both in pre-determining and shaping the established narratives pertaining 
to members of the out-groups deemed threatening, SUD could also be seen 
as an indirect, yet relevant, criticism of society. Even though most of the an-
ti-migrant SUD, observed on the textual level in this case study, was aimed 
directly at migrants or their religious and ethnic backgrounds, many of the 
87
R. CHITRAKAR: Threat perception in online anti-migrant speech: A Slovene case study
arguments did, in fact, reflect Slovenes’ growing dissatisfaction and frustra-
tion with the economy, politics, and the State itself. Along with the relevant 
work of revealing the harmful and widespread effects of socially and demo-
cratically disruptive discursive practices and highlighting the many forms in 
which language use allows them to manifest, an equal measure of attention 
should also be given to the broader context and the root systemic causes that 
lay beneath. 
7  C O N C L U S I O N 
The study confirmed the central role of threat perception in the formation of 
online anti-migrant speech as a subcategory of socially unacceptable discourse 
in Slovenia. In fact, some form of threat perception was identified in more 
than half (58 %) of the comments analyzed. This finding should be viewed in 
light of the fact that in the remaining 42 % of the cases, in which threat percep-
tion could not be pointed out, commenters gave no reason or justification for 
targeting migrants. These comments were, for the most part, examples of pure 
hate speech in the form of insults and incitation to violence. This means that 
whenever a comment was based on actual argumentative content, it could be 
linked to one of the categories of threat perception identified. The analysis of 
comments targeting migrants and refugees revealed six recurrent themes that 
permeated the debate about the European migration crisis. 
The results indicated that anti-migrant speech was predominantly fear-driv-
en, with one of the main concerns expressed related to the immediate physical 
threat allegedly posed by migrants arriving to Slovenia. Interestingly, the com-
ments from this category of threat perception were the least substantiated and 
seemed heavily influenced by sensationalist media reporting. Arguments that 
provided more explanatory basis, such as those related to the fear of economic 
deterioration or sociocultural displacement, were far less frequent. Despite 
the fact that migrants were the primary target of SUD in this case study, a 
closer examination of the comments also confirmed the commenters’ dissatis-
faction and frustration with the state and the way the political leadership has 
handled the situation. The perception of threat in the context of anti-migrant 
speech often stems from difficult personal circumstances in which the arrival 
of migrants and refugees may be seen as an aggravating factor. 
88 89
Slovenščina 2.0, 2020 (1)
As referring to media reports and various opinion makers with the aim of le-
gitimizing anti-migrant comments is a widely used strategy in online SUD, 
more research should be focused on how influential discursive actors contrib-
ute to establishing the framework for intolerant, discriminative and otherwise 
harmful speech. Accountability for disseminating negative attitudes toward 
vulnerable minority groups should be highlighted and discussed. An in-depth 
examination of discursive devices most frequently and effectively deployed in 
SUD is crucial to understanding, recognizing, and being able to respond to 
online hate speech. Also, an ongoing and regularly updated overview of online 
SUD would be useful in following current topical and argumentative trends 
that should be addressed in public debate when speaking against hate speech. 
It is particularly worrying that the many forms of socially unacceptable dis-
course so often remain unrecognized by those who help create it, until they 
become ingrained in the public conscience as part of the new normal. 
Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges the financial support from the Slovenian Research 
Agency (research core funding No. P6-0215).
R E F E R E N C E S
Baider, F., & Kopytowska, M. (2018). Narrating hostility, challenging hostile 
narratives. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 14(1), 1–24.
Baker, P., & McEnery, T. (2005). A Corpus-based Approach to Discourses of 
Refugees and Asylum Seekers in UN and Newspaper Texts. Journal of 
Language and Politics, 4(2), 197–226.
BBC News (2015). Migrant crisis: Hungary closes border with Croatia. Re-
trieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34556682
Beißwenger, M., Horsmann, T., & Zesch, T. (2018). Part-of-speech tagging 
for corpora of computer-mediated communication: a case study on find-
ing rare phenomena. In D. Fišer & M. Beißwenger (Eds.), Investigating 
Computer-Mediated Communication: Corpus-based Approaches to Lan-
guage in the Digital World (pp. 192–219). Ljubljana: ZIFF.
Buzan, B., Waever, O., & Wilde, de J. (1998). Security: A new framework for 
analysis. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner.
89
R. CHITRAKAR: Threat perception in online anti-migrant speech: A Slovene case study
van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Racism and the Press. London and New York: Routledge.
van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen 
& H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis, 349–371.   
Erjavec, K., & Kovačič, M. P. (2012). You Don’t Understand, this is a New War. 
Analysis of Hate Speech in News Websites’ Comments. Mass Communi-
cation and Society, 15(6), 899–920.
European Council (2016). EU-Turkey Statement, 18 March 2016. Re-
trieved from https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/18/
eu-turkey-statement/
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and Power. London, New York: Longman.
Fišer, D., & Beisswenger, M. (Eds.). (2017). Investigating Computer-Mediat-
ed Communication: Corpus-based Approaches to Language in the Digi-
tal World. Ljubljana: ZIFF.
Gorjanc, V., & Fišer, D. (2018). Twitter in razmerja moči: diskurzna analiza 
kampanj ob referendumu za izenačitev zakonskih zvez v Sloveniji. Slavis-
tična revija, 66(4), 473–495.
Gorjanc, V., & Fišer, D. (2020). Twitter discourse on LGBTQ+ in Slovenia. In 
D. Fišer & P. Smith (Eds.), The Dark Side of Digital Platforms: Linguistic 
Investigations of socially unacceptable online discourse practices (pp. 
36–55). Ljubljana: ZIFF.
Huysmans, J. (2006). The politics of insecurity: Fear, migration and asylum 
in the EU. London: Routledge.
Innes, A. (2010). When the threatened become the threat: The construction 
of asylum seekers in British media narratives. International Relations, 4, 
456–477.
Keren, G. (2011). On the definition and possible underpinnings of framing 
effects. Perspectives on framing, 3 –33. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Kogovšek Šalamon, N. (2017). Mass Migration, Crimmigration and Defiance: 
The Case of Humanitarian Corridor. Southeastern Europe, 41(3), 251–275.
Ladić, M., & Vučko, K. (2016). Slovenia’s response to increased arrivals of ref-
ugees: “We don’t want them, but we also don’t understand why they don’t 
want to stay.” In N. Kogovšek Šalamon & V. Bajt (Eds.), Razor-wired: Re-
flections on migration movements through Slovenia in 2015 (pp. 7–10). 
Ljubljana, Slovenia: Peace Institute.  
90 91
Slovenščina 2.0, 2020 (1)
Ljubešić, N., Fišer, D., & Erjavec, T. (2019). The FRENK Datasets of Socially 
Unacceptable Discourse in Slovene and English. Retrieved from https://
arxiv.org/pdf/1906.02045.pdf
Merrill, S., & Åkerlund, M. (2018). Standing Up for Sweden? The Racist Dis-
courses, Architectures and Affordances of an Anti-Immigration Facebook 
Group. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 23(6), 332–353. 
Sindoni, M. G. (2018). DIRECT HATE SPEECH VS. INDIRECT FEAR 
SPEECH: A multimodal critical discourse analysis of the Sun’s editori-
al “1 in 5 Brit Muslims’ sympathy for jihadis”. Lingue e Linguaggi, 28, 
267–292.
Slovenske novice (2015). VIDEO: Begunci zavračajo pomoč Rdečega križa? 
Retrieved from https://www.slovenskenovice.si/novice/svet/video-begunci-zavracajo- 
pomoc-rdecega-kriza
Vehovar, V., Povž, B., Fišer, D., Ljubešić, N., Šulc, A., & Jontes, D. (2020). 
Družbeno nesprejemljivi diskurz na Facebookovih straneh novičarskih 
portalov. Teorija in praksa, 57(2), 622–645.
Vezovnik, A. (2017). Securitizing Migration in Slovenia: A Discourse Analysis 
of the Slovenian Refugee Situation. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee 
Studies, 16(1–2), 39–56.
Waldron, J. (2012). The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Wodak, R., & Boukala, S. (2015). European identities and the revival of na-
tionalism in the European Union: A discourse historical approach. Jour-
nal of Language and Politics, 14(1), 87–109.
91
R. CHITRAKAR: Threat perception in online anti-migrant speech: A Slovene case study
PERCEPCIJA GROŽNJE V PROTIMIGRANTSKEM 
GOVORU NA SPLETU: ŠTUDIJA PRIMERA 
Članek na osnovi kritične analize odzivov komentatorjev na medijske objave v 
času evropske migracijske krize opisuje percepcijo beguncev kot grožnje v slov-
enskem spletnem diskurzu. Raziskava izhaja iz stališča, da je dojemanje pojava 
migracij kot grožnje v središču družbeno nesprejemljivega diskurza, v katerem 
so begunci in migranti prikazani kot nezaželjen in potencialno nevaren ele-
ment. V okviru celovitega projekta, ki je vključeval obravnavo javnih odzivov na 
medijsko poročanje o prihodu migrantov v Slovenijo, so bili za analizo izbrani 
komentarji, usmerjeni proti beguncem in migrantom. Relevantni komentarji 
so bili nato označeni z namenom opredelitve najpogostejših tematskih sklopov, 
vezanih na percepcijo grožnje. Besedilna analiza se osredotoča na opis glavnih 
kategorij domnevne grožnje ter na različne diskurzivne značilnosti in strategi-
je, vsebovane v komentarjih. Čeprav obravnava pojava v večji meri temelji na 
kvalitativnem opisu, je v članku predstavljen tudi pregled pogostnosti in pora-
zdelitve prepoznanih kategorij. 
Ključne besede: korpusna analiza, kritična analiza diskurza, protimigrantski gov-
or, sovražni govor, evropske migracije 
To delo je ponujeno pod licenco Creative Commons: Priznanje avtorstva-Deljenje pod enakimi 
pogoji 4.0 Mednarodna. / This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-
Alike 4.0 International.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/