“…Due to this cognitivelinguistic emphasis on the conceptual nature of metaphor (e.g., Kövecses 2002;Johnson 1980, 1999;Ortony 1993;Gibbs 1994), the distinct and variegated role of metaphor as a specific communicative device was given much less attention. Recently, researchers from various backgrounds have proposed to take the communicative function of metaphor into account, including in pragmatics (e.g., Carston 2010;Goddard 2004;Needham-Didsbury 2016), cognitive semiotics (e.g., Brandt and Brandt 2005;Bernárdez 2016), English as a Lingua Franca (e.g., MacArthur 2016; Nacey 2013), (discourse) dynamic approaches to metaphor (e.g., Cameron 1999Cameron , 2003Müller 2008), corpus linguistics (e.g., Deignan 2005;Goatly 1997) and discourse analysis (e.g., Charteris-Black and Musolff 2003;Semino 2008;Steen 2008Steen , 2011bSteen , 2015. The proposals by Cameron (2003), Charteris-Black and Musolff (2003), and Steen (e.g., 2008Steen (e.g., , 2011bSteen (e.g., , 2015 are most closely related to the two-dimensional model of metaphor Johnson 1980, 1999), in that they all take the dimensions of language and thought as a starting point.…”