Media reports have the power to change the opinions of the readership on any topic simply by repetitively using certain wording and structures. In certain cases, the reader may be prevented from forming an objective stance and unprejudiced perspective, which can prove dangerous if the topic in question is highly sensitive. Ever since the European refugee crisis in 2015, newspaper articles in the
... [Show full abstract] UK press have frequently used a range of dehumanizing language. This paper attempts to examine the issue by both quantitatively and qualitatively comparing the structures used to describe refugees, asylum seekers, migrants and immigrants in two consecutive years (2015 and 2016 respectively). Three British online newspapers were selected for this purpose: The Guardian, The Telegraph and The Independent. Through a combination of conceptual metaphor theory, critical discourse analysis (CDA) and corpus linguistics, this paper examines and analyzes the common collocations and metaphors used in media reports to refer to refugees at the outset of the crisis, and then again during the referendum year. The comparison between different periods is crucial, in that it can reveal whether expressions recur over time, especially because the media reports initially provided general information about the refugees such as their number and origins, but later also discussed the impact of the crisis on European countries. This analysis centres around the frequent use of dehumanizing language, which has not weakened over time, despite appeals from the UN Refugee Agency and numerous non-governmental organizations, who have sought to remind the press that words do matter in the migration debate. The findings show that dehumanization is recurrent and ubiquitous in this context, resulting in the reinforcement of inhumane media treatment of this vulnerable group.