It is now widely recognized that self-promotion in academic discourse varies across disciplines. Whereas most analysts focus on publicization techniques in natural and social sciences, the humanities have received much less attention. This article investigates the strategies associated with promotional (meta)discourse in the humanities. In particular, it compares and contrasts research articles in language and literary studies published in North American academic journals during 2001-2006. This inquiry demonstrates that in both disciplines, scholars utilize two rhetorical strategies to publicize their work: (1) positive evaluation of their own study and of those investigations in which the current study is grounded; and (2) negative evaluation of dissenting views. A combination of both strategies is used to widen the gap between the writer's contribution and alternative treatments. Lexicogrammatical and discourse devices employed in both disciplines include evaluative lexis, coordination, comment clauses, personal pronouns, lexical cohesion, and discourse chunks sequencing. Employment of promotional elements across article sections and moves in the two disciplines, however, differs. This study reconfirms the advantage of specificity in teaching academic literacies advocated by many applied linguists and identifies actual strategies that can be incorporated into writing curricula. (Contains 1 table.)