A cognitive-linguistic analysis of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam in Egyptian–Ethiopian discourse
Reham El Shazly | Arab Academy for Science, Technology & Maritime Transport
May Samir El Falaky | Arab Academy for Science, Technology & Maritime Transport
This study examines cognitive representations of Ethiopia and Egypt’s hydro-political stances on the Grand
Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Data were analysed using image schema theory and conceptual metaphor theory to identify how political
leaders deploy conceptual structures to construct, maintain, and reproduce (counter-)hydro-hegemony for water management and
international relations broadly. Results suggest that the gerd represents physical and symbolic boundaries
constructed/activated to block and animate power. Egypt prefers multilateralism on gerd matters; whereas,
Ethiopia acts unilaterally in its national interest. The findings indicate that international public opinion can be cognitively
and discursively manipulated to legitimise (in)action sanctioning (counter)hydro-hegemony using original metaphor mappings and
mini-narratives. This study posits that interstate hydro-disputes can be viewed as either a journey or trial.
While Egypt suggested a family-threat-journey-destination script where all regions correlate to garner power, Ethiopia
invoked a victim -threat-defendant-plaintiff-trial narrative to defend confrontational move(s) and motivate the
illegitimate jury to dismiss the case.
(2019) The
Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Blue
Nile. Switzerland: Springer.
Ahram
Online
(2020, June30). Egypt’s
speech at the UN Security Council on GERD. Retrieved from [URL]
Allan, T.
(2003) IWRM/IWRAM:
A new sanctioned discourse? (Occasional Paper 50). SOAS Water Issues Study
Group. London: University of London.
Biru, A., & Tadege, A.
(2020, August29). GERD –
Where past injustices must give way to future possibilities, Fortune
News, Viewed 29 January
2020. Retrieved from [URL]
Cap, P.
(2006) Legitimisation
in political discourse: A cross-disciplinary perspective on the modern US war
rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cascão, A.
(2008) Ethiopia–Challenges
to Egyptian hegemony in the Nile Basin. Water
Policy,
10
(2), 13–28.
Cascão, A. E., & Zeitoun, M.
(2010) Power,
hegemony and critical hydropolitics. In A. Earle (Ed.), Transboundary
water management: Principles and
practice (pp. 27–42). London: Earthscan.
Charteris-Black, J.
(2005) Politicians
and rhetoric. The persuasive power of
metaphor. Hampshire: Palgrave.
Chilton, P.
(2004) Analysing
political discourse: Theory and
practice. London: Routledge.
(2020) Egypt’s Foreign
Minister full speech on GERD at UNSC. Retrieved from [URL]
Davidson, P.
(2013) The
role of ‘social exclusion’ and other metaphors in contemporary British social policy: A cognitive critical
approach. Journal of International Relations and
Development,
16
1, 206–226.
Dirven, R.
(2005) Major
strands in cognitive linguistics. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive
Linguistics internal dynamics and interdisciplinary
interaction (pp.17–68). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
El-Bey, D.
(2020, December28). 2011–2020:
GERD – Failure to find common grounds. Ahram Online. Retrieved
from [URL] (accessed 30 June 2020)
Ethiopian Embassy
(2020) Ethiopia’s
statement at the UN Security Council on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Retrieved
from [URL]
Gibbs, R. W.
(2017) The
embodied and discourse views of metaphor: Why these are not so different and how they can be brought closer
together. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor.
Embodied cognition and
discourse (pp.319–335). Cambridge University Press.
Gieseking, J.
(2017) Geographical
Imagination. In D. Richardson, N. Castree, M. Goodchild, A. Jaffrey, W. Liu, A. Kobayashi, & R. Marston (Eds.) International
encyclopedia of
Geography (pp.1–8). New York: Wiley-Blackwell and the Association of American Geographers.
Grady, J. E.
(2007) Metaphor. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of Cognitive
Linguistics, (pp.187–213). Oxford: Oxford UP.
Grcheva, I.
(2016) Water
urbanism in transboundary regions: The Nile Basin and the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance
Dam [Unpublished Master Thesis] University KU Leuven, Faculty of Engineering Science.
Hampe, B.
(2005) When
down is not bad, and up not good enough: A usage-based assessment of the plus–minus parameter in image-schema
theory. Cognitive
Linguistics,
16
(1), 81–112.
Hampe, B.
(2016) Perception
and language. In H. Miller (Ed.), The
SAGE encyclopedia of theory in
psychology, (pp.664–666). CA: SAGE Publications.
Hart, C.
(2011) Force-interactive
patterns in immigration discourse: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to CDA. Discourse &
Society,
22
(3), 269–286.
Hedblom, M.
(2020) Image
schemas and concept invention: Cognitive, logical, and linguistic
investigations. Switzerland: Springer.
Johnson, M.
(1987) The
body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and
reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, M.
(1989) Image-schematic
bases of meaning. Recherches
Sémiotiques,
9
(3), 109–118.
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women,
fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the
mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors
we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1999) Philosophy
in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western
thought (Vol. 6401). New York: Basic books.
Marks, M. P.
(2018) Revisiting
metaphors in international relations theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Maull, H.
(2020, March09). Multilateralism.
SWP Comment No. 9. Retrieved 30
June 2020 from [URL]
Menga, F.
(2016) Reconceptualizing
hegemony: The circle of hydro-hegemony. Water
Policy, 18 (2), 401–418.
Musolff, A.
(2004) Metaphor
and political discourse. Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Musolff, A.
(2006) Metaphor
scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and
Symbol,
21
(1), 23–38.
Musolff, A.
(2016a) What
can metaphor theory contribute to the study of political
discourse? In M. Degani, P. Frassi & M. I. Lorenzetti (Eds.), The
languages of
politics (pp.9–28). UK: Cambridge Scholar Publishing
Musolff, A.
(2016b) Political
metaphor analysis. Discourse and
scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.
Müller, M.
(2020) In
search of the global East: Thinking between North and
South. Geopolitics,
25
(3), 734–755.
Negm, A., Elsahabi, M., & Tayie, M. S.
(2019) An
overview of Aswan High Dam and Grand Ethiopian Renaissance
Dam. In A. Negm & Abdel-Fattah, S. (Eds.), Grand
Ethiopian Renaissance Dam versus Aswan High Dam: A view from
Egypt (pp. 3–20). Switzerland: Springer.
Nile Basin Initiative
(2012) State of
the River Nile Basin Report. Entebbe: Nile Basin Initiative.
Oakley, T.
(2005) Force-dynamic
dimensions of rhetorical effect. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From
perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive
linguistics, (pp. 443–473). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ó Tuathail, G., & Agnew, J.
(1992) Geopolitics
and discourse: Practical geopolitical reasoning in American foreign policy. Political
Geography,
11
(2), 190–204.
(2017) The
conceptualisation of AUSTERITY in the Portuguese, Spanish and Irish
Press. In F. Sharifian (Eds.), Advances
in Cultural
Linguistics (pp.345–368). Singapore: Springer.
Talmy, L.
(2000) Toward
a cognitive semantic. Typology and process in concept
structuring. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Tekuya, M.
(2018) The
Egyptian hydro hegemony in the Nile Basin: The quest for changing the status quo. Journal of
Water
Law,
26
1, 10–20.
Thibodeau, P. H., Matlock, T., & Flusberg, S. J.
(2019) The
role of metaphor in communication and thought. Language and Linguistics
Compass,
13
(5), 1–18.
World Bank
Report
(2018, June30). Access to
Electricity. Retrieved from [URL]
Zeitoun, M., & Warner, J.
(2006) Hydro-hegemony–A
framework for analysis of transboundary water conflicts. Water
Policy,
8
(5), 435–460.
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
Elsoufy, Ayman Mohamed
2024. Media bias through collocations: a corpus-based study of Egyptian and Ethiopian news coverage of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11:1
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.