ليست موضوع پايان نامه هاي لاتين Using cloud- and web-based tools is one of the most cutting-edge methods of teaching and learning languages. Although there have been a number of studies on this issue, lack of a systematic review focusing on the uses of Google Docs in English language teaching (ELT) as a foreign language was identified. With the aim to satisfy this need, the present study systematically reviewed 41 articles related to the affordances provided by Google Docs in ELT in a twelve-year period from 2010 to 2022 with the purpose of identifying the research trends, main themes, and findings of the selected literature based on data synthesis. Accordingly, four main findings were discovered: (a) the highest proportion of the studies adopted a practical approach regardless of discovering a firm theoretical framework; (b) most of the articles were qualitative and mixed method studies as well as reviews ranked second and third, respectively; (c) the highest number of studies focused on uses of Google Docs for collaborative writing and its influences; (d) a significant percentage of the articles did not possess a firm theoretical framework which is most likely attributed to the novelty of this area. The categories obtained from the findings of the selected literature indicated that the use of Google Docs has been conducive to students’ writing skills. The present study can assist educators and curriculum developers to utilize Google Docs in their practice. Finally, suggestions for future research based on the limitations of the present study are provided. Keywords: Collaborative Writing, Google Docs, Systematic Review Using grammatical metaphor can enhance the quality of both written and spoken language by substituting one grammatical class or structure with another. Previous studies have explored its use across languages, disciplines, and academic writings, especially in research articles—an important component of postgraduate education. Despite numerous articles highlighting its importance, no study has explored its use specifically in discussion sections of research papers, which are crucial for expressing the researcher's opinions and perspectives. Applying grammatical metaphor in research article discussions is helpful in building coherence and reinforcing arguments. The present study compared the forms, functions, frequencies, and distributions of grammatical metaphors in the discussion sections of research articles from hard fields (i.e., astrophysics, physics, and medicine) and soft fields (i.e., psychology, social sciences, and linguistics). The stratal model, which divides grammatical metaphor into three main subcategories (i.e., ideational, interpersonal, and textual metaphor), was used for the above-mentioned purposes. Results showed that the experiential metaphor was the most preva‎lent type of metaphor before the textual metaphor. There were significant differences in the use of experiential and textual metaphors across disciplines. Experiential metaphors, such as shift to noun, were more preva‎lent in soft disciplines, while hard disciplines tended to use shift to quality more. Some types of textual metaphor (i.e., text referencing, internal conjunction, and total use of textual metaphor) were more frequent in soft disciplines. Grammatical metaphor can provide valuable instructional insights for teachers, materials developers and students by making them aware of how to write more academically and how to develop their arguments more persuasively.

Using grammatical metaphor can enhance the quality of both written and spoken language by substituting one grammatical class or structure with another. Previous studies have explored its use across languages, disciplines, and academic writings, especially in research articles—an important component of postgraduate education. Despite numerous articles highlighting its importance, no study has explored its use specifically in discussion sections of research papers, which are crucial for expressing the researcher's opinions and perspectives. Applying grammatical metaphor in research article discussions is helpful in building coherence and reinforcing arguments. The present study compared the forms, functions, frequencies, and distributions of grammatical metaphors in the discussion sections of research articles from hard fields (i.e., astrophysics, physics, and medicine) and soft fields (i.e., psychology, social sciences, and linguistics). The stratal model, which divides grammatical metaphor into three main subcategories (i.e., ideational, interpersonal, and textual metaphor), was used for the above-mentioned purposes. Results showed that the experiential metaphor was the most preva‎lent type of metaphor before the textual metaphor. There were significant differences in the use of experiential and textual metaphors across disciplines. Experiential metaphors, such as shift to noun, were more preva‎lent in soft disciplines, while hard disciplines tended to use shift to quality more. Some types of textual metaphor (i.e., text referencing, internal conjunction, and total use of textual metaphor) were more frequent in soft disciplines. Grammatical metaphor can provide valuable instructional insights for teachers, materials developers and students by making them aware of how to write more academically and how to develop their arguments more persuasively.