Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Hydro-political power of the Nile

A cognitive-linguistic analysis of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam in Egyptian–Ethiopian discourse

ORCID logo | Arab Academy for Science, Technology & Maritime Transport
ORCID logo | 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.
Keywords: cognitive linguistics, conceptual metaphor, hydro-hegemony, image schema, power, water management discourse
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
  • 3.Theoretical framework
  • 4.Method
  • 5.Results and analysis
    • 5.1Analysis of the Egyptian Speech
    • 5.2Analysis of the Ethiopian speech
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 June 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00148.els
References
Abtew, W., Dessu, S. B.
(2019) The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile. Switzerland: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ahram Online
(2020, June 30). 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.Google Scholar
Biru, A., & Tadege, A.
(2020, August 29). 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.Google Scholar
Cascão, A.
(2008) Ethiopia–Challenges to Egyptian hegemony in the Nile Basin. Water Policy, 10 (2), 13–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J.
(2005) Politicians and rhetoric. The persuasive power of metaphor. Hampshire: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, P.
(2004) Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Get and the grasp schema: A new approach to conceptual modeling in image schema semantics. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics, (pp. 331–370). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daily News Egypt
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
El-Bey, D.
(2020, December 28). 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, J. E.
(2007) Metaphor. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, (pp.187–213). Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Perception and language. In H. Miller (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of theory in psychology, (pp.664–666). CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Hart, C.
(2011) Force-interactive patterns in immigration discourse: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to CDA. Discourse & Society, 22 (3), 269–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hedblom, M.
(2020) Image schemas and concept invention: Cognitive, logical, and linguistic investigations. Switzerland: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989) Image-schematic bases of meaning. Recherches Sémiotiques, 9 (3), 109–118.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought (Vol. 6401). New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
Marks, M. P.
(2018) Revisiting metaphors in international relations theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maull, H.
(2020, March 09). 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Musolff, A.
(2004) Metaphor and political discourse. Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21 (1), 23–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 PublishingGoogle Scholar
(2016b) Political metaphor analysis. Discourse and scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Müller, M.
(2020) In search of the global East: Thinking between North and South. Geopolitics, 25 (3), 734–755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nile Basin Initiative
(2012) State of the River Nile Basin Report. Entebbe: Nile Basin Initiative.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ó Tuathail, G., & Agnew, J.
(1992) Geopolitics and discourse: Practical geopolitical reasoning in American foreign policy. Political Geography, 11 (2), 190–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soares da Silva, A.
(2016) The persuasive (and manipulative) power of metaphor in ‘austerity’ discourse: A corpus-based analysis of embodied and moral metaphors of austerity in the Portuguese press. In M. Romano & M. D. Porto (Eds.), Exploring discourse strategies in social and cognitive interaction, (pp.79–108). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soares da Silva, A., Cuenca, M. J., & Romano, M.
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantic. Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
World Bank Report
(2018, June 30). 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar