Universality was once again proven an unsustainable paradigm -as with Universal Grammar (UG) before it. Embodied experiences are not the same across societies/cultures. And that should have been obvious from the get-go. But the forefathers of Conceptual Metaphor were preaching a 'ubiquitous' phenomenon, so universality crept back in. Sociocultural approaches bring a qualitative evaluation of the varied embodied experiences and celebrate their diversity.

I'd suggest having a look at chapter 5 of Lantolf & Thorne's (2006) book SCT and the genesis of second language development. They draw on Vygotsky's concept of mediation and appropriation of 'culturally organised concepts'. More broadly, lots of people have written about the underlying acquisition vs participation perspectives in AL.

One of the main reasons for adopting a sociocultural approach to the study of metaphors is the fact that the metaphorical meanings at the cognitive domain are deeply rooted in culture, and unlike the physical domain meanings that tend to be universal, they are determined by specific cultural norms. As an illustration, in the sentence, " Jack is an owl." Persian interpretation is significantly different from English interpretation. To a Persian , a hooting owl is ominous ,but to an English individual it denotes wisdom. As Alan Watts states, " We seldom realize, for example that our most private thoughts and emotions are not actually our own. For we think in terms of languages and images which we did not invent, but which were given to us by our society.”

For literature on the socio-cultural perspective in metaphor research, I recommend that you read the work by e.g. Kövecses, Musolff and Charteris-Black. They have different takes on the relation between the socio-cultural, discourse and the cognitive, but provide relevant perspectives on the subject.