Volume 22, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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 represents physical and symbolic boundaries constructed/activated to and animate power. Egypt prefers multilateralism on 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 or . While Egypt suggested a script where all regions correlate to garner power, Ethiopia invoked a - narrative to defend confrontational move(s) and motivate the illegitimate jury to dismiss the case.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abtew, W., Dessu, S. B.
    (2019) The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile. Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑97094‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97094-3 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahram Online
    Ahram Online (2020, June30). Egypt’s speech at the UN Security Council on GERD. Retrieved fromhttps://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/373246/Egypt/Politics-/Egypts-speech-at-the-UN-Security-council-on-GERD-F.aspx
  3. Allan, T.
    (2003) IWRM/IWRAM: A new sanctioned discourse? (Occasional Paper 50). SOAS Water Issues Study Group. London: University of London.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Biru, A., & Tadege, A.
    (2020, August29). GERD – Where past injustices must give way to future possibilities, Fortune News, Viewed29 January 2020. Retrieved fromhttps://addisfortune.news/gerd-where-past-injustices-must-give-way-to-future-possibilities/
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cap, P.
    (2006) Legitimisation in political discourse: A cross-disciplinary perspective on the modern US war rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cascão, A.
    (2008) Ethiopia–Challenges to Egyptian hegemony in the Nile Basin. Water Policy, 10(2), 13–28. 10.2166/wp.2008.206
    https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2008.206 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cascão, A. E., & Zeitoun, M.
    (2010) Power, hegemony and critical hydropolitics. InA. Earle (Ed.), Transboundary water management: Principles and practice (pp.27–42). London: Earthscan.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Charteris-Black, J.
    (2005) Politicians and rhetoric. The persuasive power of metaphor. Hampshire: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230501706
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501706 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chilton, P.
    (2004) Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203561218
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2009) Get and the grasp schema: A new approach to conceptual modeling in image schema semantics. InV. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics, (pp.331–370). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.22chi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.22chi [Google Scholar]
  11. Daily News Egypt
    Daily News Egypt (2020) Egypt’s Foreign Minister full speech on GERD at UNSC. Retrieved fromhttps://dailynewsegypt.com/2020/06/30/egypts-foreign-minister-full-speech-at-unsc-on-gerd/
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 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, 161, 206–226. 10.1057/jird.2012.25
    https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2012.25 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dirven, R.
    (2005) Major strands in cognitive linguistics. InF. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.17–68). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197716.1.17
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197716.1.17 [Google Scholar]
  14. El-Bey, D.
    (2020, December28). 2011–2020: GERD – Failure to find common grounds. Ahram Online. Retrieved fromenglish.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/50/1201/397281/AlAhram-Weekly/Egypt/-GERD--Failure-to-find-common-grounds.aspx (accessed30 June 2020)
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ethiopian Embassy
    Ethiopian Embassy (2020) Ethiopia’s statement at the UN Security Council on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Retrieved fromhttps://www.ethioembassy.org.uk/ethiopias-statement-at-the-united-nations-security-council-on-grand-ethiopian-renaissance-dam/
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 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. InB. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor. Embodied cognition and discourse (pp.319–335). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108182324.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.018 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gieseking, J.
    (2017) Geographical Imagination. InD. 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. 10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg1171
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg1171 [Google Scholar]
  18. Grady, J. E.
    (2007) Metaphor. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, (pp.187–213). Oxford: Oxford UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 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. 10.1515/cogl.2005.16.1.81
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.1.81 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2016) Perception and language. InH. Miller (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of theory in psychology, (pp.664–666). CA: SAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hart, C.
    (2011) Force-interactive patterns in immigration discourse: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to CDA. Discourse & Society, 22(3), 269–286. 10.1177/0957926510395440
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926510395440 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hedblom, M.
    (2020) Image schemas and concept invention: Cognitive, logical, and linguistic investigations. Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑47329‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47329-7 [Google Scholar]
  24. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. (1989) Image-schematic bases of meaning. Recherches Sémiotiques, 9(3), 109–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought (Vol.6401). New York: Basic books.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Marks, M. P.
    (2018) Revisiting metaphors in international relations theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑71201‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71201-7 [Google Scholar]
  30. Maull, H.
    (2020, March09). Multilateralism. SWP Comment No. 9. Retrieved30 June 2020fromhttps://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2020C09_multilateralism.pdf
  31. Menga, F.
    (2016) Reconceptualizing hegemony: The circle of hydro-hegemony. Water Policy, 18 (2), 401–418. 10.2166/wp.2015.063
    https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2015.063 [Google Scholar]
  32. Musolff, A.
    (2004) Metaphor and political discourse. Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230504516
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504516 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2006) Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(1), 23–38. 10.1207/s15327868ms2101_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2101_2 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2016a) What can metaphor theory contribute to the study of political discourse?InM. Degani, P. Frassi & M. I. Lorenzetti (Eds.), The languages of politics (pp.9–28). UK: Cambridge Scholar Publishing
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (2016b) Political metaphor analysis. Discourse and scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Müller, M.
    (2020) In search of the global East: Thinking between North and South. Geopolitics, 25(3), 734–755. 10.1080/14650045.2018.1477757
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2018.1477757 [Google Scholar]
  37. Negm, A., Elsahabi, M., & Tayie, M. S.
    (2019) An overview of Aswan High Dam and Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. InA. Negm & Abdel-Fattah, S. (Eds.), Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam versus Aswan High Dam: A view from Egypt (pp.3–20). Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95600‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95600-8 [Google Scholar]
  38. Nile Basin Initiative
    Nile Basin Initiative (2012) State of the River Nile Basin Report. Entebbe: Nile Basin Initiative.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Oakley, T.
    (2005) Force-dynamic dimensions of rhetorical effect. InB. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics, (pp.443–473). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.5.443
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.5.443 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ó Tuathail, G., & Agnew, J.
    (1992) Geopolitics and discourse: Practical geopolitical reasoning in American foreign policy. Political Geography, 11(2), 190–204. 10.1016/0962‑6298(92)90048‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0962-6298(92)90048-X [Google Scholar]
  41. 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. InM. Romano & M. D. Porto (Eds.), Exploring discourse strategies in social and cognitive interaction, (pp.79–108). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.262.04soa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.262.04soa [Google Scholar]
  42. Soares da Silva, A., Cuenca, M. J., & Romano, M.
    (2017) The conceptualisation of AUSTERITY in the Portuguese, Spanish and Irish Press. InF. Sharifian (Eds.), Advances in Cultural Linguistics (pp.345–368). Singapore: Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑4056‑6_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4056-6_16 [Google Scholar]
  43. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantic. Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Tekuya, M.
    (2018) The Egyptian hydro hegemony in the Nile Basin: The quest for changing the status quo. Journal of Water Law, 261, 10–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 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. 10.1111/lnc3.12327
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12327 [Google Scholar]
  46. World Bank Report
    World Bank Report (2018, June30). Access to Electricity. Retrieved fromhttps://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS?locations=ET
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Zeitoun, M., & Warner, J.
    (2006) Hydro-hegemony–A framework for analysis of transboundary water conflicts. Water Policy, 8(5), 435–460. 10.2166/wp.2006.054
    https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2006.054 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error