小林雄一郎 (Yuichiro Kobayashi) によるテキストマイニング関連の研究メモ

履歴

references編集する

最終更新：langstatlangstat 2010年01月07日(木) 19:56:13

  • 参考文献
    • 本ページの著作権は管理者にあります（無断転載は禁止）。
    • 引用する場合は、必ず初出の論文かページURLを明記してください。
    • ブラウザや環境によって、文字化けする場合があります。

  • Abe, M. (2007). A corpus-based investigation of errors across proficiency levels of L2 spoken production. JACET Journal, 44, 1-14.
  • Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Aijmer, K. (2008). At the interface between grammar and discourse: A corpus-based study of some pragmatic markers. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente (pp. 11-36). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Altenberg, B., & Tapper, M. (1998). The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners’ written English. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 80-93). London: Longman.
  • Anping, H. (2002). On the discourse marker so. In P. Peter, P. C. Collins, & A. Smith (Eds.), New frontiers of corpus research: Papers from the twenty first international conference on English language research on computerized corpora Sydney 2000 (pp. 41-52). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
  • Ariel, M. (1994). Pragmatic operators. In R. E. Asher & J. M. Y. Simpson (Eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 3250-3253). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  • Asao, K. (2006). Spoken and written discourse of EFL learners: Findings from the sound corpus of Japanese learners of English. A paper given at the ICLE / LINDSEI Japanese Sub-Corpus Symposium. Tokyo: Showa Women’s University.
  • Baker, P. (2006). Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum.
  • Baker, P., Hardie, A., & McEnery, T. (2006). A glossary of corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • Bazanella, C. (1990). Phatic connectives as intonational cues in contemporary spoken Italian. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 629-647.
  • Bernardini, R. (2004). Corpora in the classroom. In J. Sinclair (Ed.), How to use corpora in language teaching (pp. 15-36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1994). Corpus-based approaches in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 15, 169-185.
  • Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
  • Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Bolton, D., Nelson, G., & Hung, J. (2002). A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing: Research from the International Corpus of English in Hong Kong (ICE-HK). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7, 165-182.
  • Chiu, Y. (2004). The L2 acquisition of the coordinating conjunction “and” in Taiwanese learners’ interlanguage at the college level. Asian EFL Journal, 6, 1-20.
  • Clahsen, H. (1980). Psycholinguistic aspects of L2 acquisition. In S. Felix (Ed.), Second language development: Trends and issues (pp. 57-79). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
  • Cobb, T. (2003). Analyzing later interlanguage with learner corpora: Quebec replications of three European studies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 393-423.
  • Conner, U., & Mbaye, A. (2002). Discourse approaches to writing assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 263-278.
  • Conrad, S. (2002). Corpus linguistic approaches for discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 75-95.
  • Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-169.
  • Crewe, W. J. (1990). The illogic of logical connectors. ELT Journal, 44, 316-325.
  • Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish students. Written Communication, 10, 37-71.
  • Damascelli, A. T. (2004). The use of connectors in argumentative essays by Italian EFL learners. In M. T. Prat Zagrebelsky (Ed.), Computer learner corpora (pp. 138-160). Alessandria: Edinzioni dell’Orso.
  • van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Connectives in text grammar and text logic. In T. A. van Dijk & J. S. Petöfi (Eds.), Grammars and descriptions (pp. 11-63). Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
  • Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23, 37-53.
  • Dunning, T. (1993). Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19, 61-74.
  • Erman, B. (1987). Pragmatic expressions in English: A study of “you know,” “you see,” and “I mean” in face-to-face conversation. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
  • Færch, C., Haastrup, K., & Phillipson, K. (1984). Learner language and language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Field, Y., & Yip, L. M. O. (1992). A comparison of internal conjunctive cohesion in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English. RELC Journal, 23, 15-28.
  • Flowerdew, L. (2001). The exploitation of small learner corpora in EPA materials. In M. A. Ghadessy, A. Henry, & R. L. Roseberry (Eds.), Small corpus studies and ELT (pp. 363-379). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Fraser, B. (1987). Pragmatic formatives. In J. Verschueren & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective (pp. 179-194). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 383-395.
  • Fraser, B. (1993). Discourse markers across language. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 4, 1-16.
  • Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931-952.
  • Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Ghadessy, M., Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (Ed.) (2001). Small corpus studies and ELT. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Gillard, P., & Gadsby, A. (1998). Using a learners’ corpus in compiling ELT dictionaries. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 159-171). London: Longman.
  • Granger, S. (1998). The computer learner corpus: A versatile new source of data for SLA research. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 3-18). London: Longman.
  • Granger, S. (2002). A bird’s-eye view of learner corpus research. In S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 3-33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Granger, S. (2004). Computer learner corpus research: Current state and future prospects. In U. Conner & T. Upton (Eds.), Applied corpus linguistics: A multidimensional perspective (pp. 123-145). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
  • Granger, S. & Rayson, P. (1998). Automatic profiling of learner texts. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 119-131). London: Longman.
  • Granger, S., & Tribble, C. (1998). Learner corpus data in the foreign language classroom: Form-focused instruction and data-driven learning. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 199-209). London: Longman.
  • Granger, S., & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15, 17-27.
  • Gut, U. (2006). Learner speech corpora in language teaching. In S. Braun, K. Kohn, & J. Mukherjee (Eds.), Corpus technology and language pedagogy: New resources, new tools, new methods (pp. 69-86). New York: Peter Lang.
  • Hakuta, K. (1976). A case study of a Japanese child learning English as a second language. Language Learning, 26, 231-251.
  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
  • Hayword, K., & Wilcoxon, H. C. (1994). Connectives in context. English Teaching Forum, 32, 20-23.
  • Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hyland, K. (2001). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112.
  • Hyland, K. (2002). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.
  • Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York: Continuum.
  • Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173-192.
  • Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 183-205.
  • Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156-177.
  • Johns, T. (1994). From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 293-313). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Jucker, A. H., & Ziv, Y. (eds.) (1997). Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Kaszubski, P. (1998). Enhancing a writing textbook: A national perspective. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 172-185). London: Longman.
  • Kettemann, B., & Marko, G. (2002). Teaching and learning by doing corpus analysis. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
  • Kilgarriff, A. (1996). Which words are particularly characteristic of a text? A survey of statistical approaches. Proceedings of AISB Workshop on Language Engineering for Document Analysis and Recognition, 33-40.
  • Knott, A., & Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18, 35-62.
  • Kobayashi, Y. (2009). Profiling metadiscourse markers in native and non-native English. Lexicon, 39, 1-17.
  • Krzeszowski, T. (1990). Contrasting language: The scope of contrastive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  • Leech, G. (1992). Corpora and theories of linguistic performance. In J. Startvik (Ed.), Directions in corpus linguistics: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82, Stockholm, 4-8 August 1991 (pp. 105-122). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Leech, G. (1997). Teaching and language corpora: A convergence. In A. Wichmann, S. Fligelstone, A. McEnery, & G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and language corpora (pp. 1-23). London: Longman.
  • Leech, G. (1998). Preface. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. xiv-xx). London: Longman.
  • Leech, G., Cruikshank, B., & Ivanik, R. (2001). An A-Z of English grammar and usage. New ed. Harlow: Pearson Education.
  • Leech, G., & Startvik, J. (1994). A communicative grammar of English. 2nd ed. London: Longman.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • MacWhinney, B. (1995). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • McCarthy, M. (1993). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • McCrostie, J. (2008). Writer visibility in EFL learner academic writing: A corpus-based study. ICAME Journal, 32, 97-114.
  • McEnery, T., & Wilson, A. (2001) Corpus linguistics. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • McEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-based language studies: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge.
  • Meunier, F. (2002). The pedagogical value of native and learner corpora. In S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 119-141). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Miesel, J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109-135.
  • Milton, J. (1998). Exploiting L1 and interlanguage corpora in the design of an electronic language learning and production environment. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 186-198). London: Longman.
  • Milton, J. (1999). Lexical thickets and electronic gateways: Making text accessible by novice writers. In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 221-243). London: Longman.
  • Milton, J. (2001). Elements of a written interlanguage: A computational and corpus-based study of institutional influences on the acquisition of English by Hong Kong Chinese students. Hong Kong: Language Center, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
  • Milton, J., & Hyland, K. (1996). Assertions in students’ academic essays: A comparison of English NS and NNS students writers. Language analysis, description and pedagogy: Proceeding of international conference organized by Language Centre, HKUST, 147-164.
  • Milton, J., & Tsang, E. S. C. (1993). A corpus-based study of logical connectors in EFL students’ writing: Directions for future research. In R. Pemberton & E. S. C. Tsang (Eds.), Studies in lexis (pp. 215-246). Hong Kong: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
  • Mindt, D. (1997). Corpora and the teaching of English in Germany. In A. Wichmann, S. Fligelstone, A. McEnery, & G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and language corpora (pp. 40-50). London: Longman.
  • Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Murkherjee, J. (2006). Corpus linguistics and language pedagogy: The state of the art and beyond. In S. Braun, K. Kohn, & J. Mukherjee (Eds.), Corpus technology and language pedagogy: New resources, new tools, new methods (pp. 5-24). New York: Peter Lang.
  • Nakamura, J. (1993). Statistical methods and large corpora: A new tool for describing text types. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 293-312). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Nakamura, J. (1994). Extended HAYASHI’s quantification method type III and its application in corpus linguistics. Journal of Language and Literature, Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences, 1, 141-192.
  • Nakamura, J. (1995). Text typology and corpus: A critical review of Biber’s methodology. English Corpus Studies, 2, 75-90.
  • Nakamura, J. (2002). A galaxy of words: structures based upon distributions of verbs, nouns and adjectives in the LOB corpus. In T. Saito, J. Nakamura, & S. Yamazaki (Eds.), English corpus linguistics in Japan (pp. 19-42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Nakamura, J., & Sinclair, J. M. (1995). The world of woman in the Bank of English: Internal criteria for the classification of corpora. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 10, 99-110.
  • Narita, M., & Sugiura, M. (2006). The use of adverbial connectors in argumentative essays by Japanese EFL college students. English Corpus Studies, 13, 23-42.
  • O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2006). From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Osborne, J. (2004). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to corpora in language teaching. In U. Conner & T. Upton (Eds.), Applied corpus linguistics: A multidimensional perspective (pp. 251-265). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
  • Östman, J.-O. (1985). Pragmatic particles twenty years after. In B. Wårvik (Ed.), Organization in discourse: Proceedings from the Turku Conference (pp. 95-108). Turku: University of Turku.
  • Petch-Tyson, S. (1998). Writer/reader visibility in EFL written discourse. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 107-118). London: Longman.
  • Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Startvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
  • Partington, A. (1998). Patterns and meaning: Using corpora for English language research and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Perdue, C. (1993). Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Polanyi, L., & Scha, R. (1983). The syntax of discourse. Text, 3, 261-270.
  • Pravec, N. A. (2002). Survey of learner corpora. ICAME Journal, 26, 81-114.
  • Ragan, P. (2001). Classroom use of a systemic functional small learner corpus. In M. A. Ghadessy, A. Henry, & R. L. Roseberry (Eds.), Small corpus studies and ELT (pp. 207-236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 367-381.
  • Richards, J. (1971). Error analysis and second language strategies. Language Sciences, 17, 12-22.
  • Römer, U. (2004). A corpus-driven approach to modal auxiliaries and their didactics. In J. M. Sinclair (Ed.), How to use corpora in language teaching (pp. 185-199). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Rühleman, C. (2007). Conversation in context: A corpus-driven approach. London: Continuum.
  • Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-231.
  • Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schorup, L. C. (1985). Common discourse particle in English conversation: “Like,” “well,” “y’know.” New York: Garland.
  • Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1995). Intercultural communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Swan, M. (2005). Practical English usage. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Tabata, T. (2002). Investigating stylistic variation in Dickens through correspondence analysis of word-class distribution. In T. Saito, J. Nakamura, & S. Yamazaki (Eds.), English corpus linguistics in Japan (pp. 165-182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Tabata, T. (2005). Profiling stylistic variations in Dickens and Smollett through correspondence analysis of low frequency words. ACH/ALLC 2005: The International Conference on Humanities Computing and Digital Scholarship Conference Abstracts, 229-232.
  • Tabata, T. (2008). Gentleman in Dickens: A multivariate stylometric approach to its collocation. Digital Humanities 2008, Book of Abstracts, the 20th Joint International Conference of the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing and the Association for Computer and the Humanities, University of Oulu, Finland, June 24-June 29, 2008, 199-202.
  • Tankó, G. (2004). The use of adverbial connectors in Hungarian university students’ argumentative essays. In J. M. Sinclair (Ed.), How to use corpora in language teaching (pp. 157-181). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Todd, R. (2001). Induction from self-selected concordances and self-correction. System, 29, 91-102.
  • Tono, Y. (2000). A corpus-based analysis of interlanguage development: Analyzing part-of-speech tag sequences of EFL learner corpora. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & P. J. Melia (Eds.), '''PALC '99: Practical applications in language corpora''' (pp. 323-340). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
  • Tono, Y. (2005). Corpus-based SLA research: State of art of learner corpus studies. In M. Minami, H. Kobayashi, M. -Nakayama & H. Shirai (Eds.), Studies in language science (4): Papers from the fourth annual conference of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences (pp. 45-77). Tokyo: Kuroshio.
  • Tribble, C. (2001). Small corpora and teaching writing. In M. A. Ghadessy, A. Henry, & R. L. Roseberry (Eds.), Small corpus studies and ELT (pp. 381-408). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Turton, N. D., & Heaton, J. B. (1996). Longman dictionary of common errors. New ed. London: Longman.
  • Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
  • Ventola, E. (1992). Writing scientific English: Overcoming intercultural problems. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 191-220.
  • Warner, R. G. (1985). Discourse connectives in English. New York: Garland.
  • Ying, S. (2007). An analysis of discourse markers used by non-native learners: Its implications for teaching English as a foreign language. Intercultural Communication Studies, 19, 51-83.
  • Young, R. F. (2002). Discourse approaches to oral assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 243-262.
  • Zamel, V. (1983). Teaching those missing links in writing. ELT Journal, 37, 22-29.
  • 和泉絵美・内元清貴・井佐原均 (編) (2004). 『日本人1200人の英語スピーキングコーパス』 東京: アルク.
  • 江川泰一郎 (1991). 『英文法解説』 改訂三版. 東京: 金子書房.
  • 岡田禎之 (2002). 『現代英語の等位構造―その形式と意味機能』 大阪: 大阪大学出版局.
  • 小林雄一郎 (2007). 「The NICT JLE Corpusと語彙研究―SSTレベルの再検証」 『英文學誌』49, 17-29.
  • 小林雄一郎 (2008a). 「高頻出語を用いた学習者コーパスの分類」石川慎一郎 (編) 『学習者コーパスの解析に基づく客観的作文評価指標の検討』(統計数理研究所共同研究リポート215), 69-82.
  • 小林雄一郎 (2008b). 「多変量解析による中間言語の特徴抽出―名詞的発話から動詞的発話へ」 『専修人文論集』83, 165-180.
  • 小林雄一郎 (2009a). 「日本人学習者の英作文における等位接続詞の使用について―“and”と“but”を例に」 『専修大学外国語教育論集』37, 21-36.
  • 小林雄一郎 (2009b). 「日本人学習者の英作文における“so”の統計的分析」 石川慎一郎 (編) 『コーパス言語研究における量的データ処理のための統計手法の概観』(統計数理研究所共同研究リポート232), 107-118.
  • 小林雄一郎 (2009c). 「日本人英語学習者の英作文におけるbecauseの誤用分析」 『関東甲信越英語教育学会研究紀要』23, 11-21.
  • 小林雄一郎・山田洋文 (2008). 「日本人英語学習者コーパスに見るMetadiscourse Markersの使用傾向」 『英語コーパス研究』15, 161-173.
  • 靜哲人 (2003). 『構造から学べるパラグラフライティング入門』 東京: 松柏社.
  • 杉浦正利 (2004). 『なぜ英語母語話者は英語学習者が話すのを聞いてすぐに母語話者でないとわかるの』 平成13年度〜15年度科学研究費補助金 基盤研究(C) 研究成果報告書.
  • 田中省作・藤井宏・冨浦洋一・徳見道夫 (2006). 「NS/NNS論文分類モデルに基づく日本人英語科学作文の特徴抽出」 『英語コーパス研究』13, 75-87.
  • 田畑智司 (2009). 「多変量アプローチで俯瞰する歴代大統領就任演説の言語変異―WashingtonからObamaまで」 英語コーパス学会第33回大会 (2009年4月25日，神戸大学) 発表資料.
  • 投野由紀夫 (編) (2007). 『日本人中高生一万人の英語コーパス“JEFLL Corpus”: 中高生が書く英文の実態とその調査』 東京: 小学館.
  • 外山滋比古 (1986). 「『思われる』と『考える』」 『思考の整理学』 東京: ちくま文庫.
  • 中村永友 (2009). 『Rで学ぶデータサイエンス2―多次元データ解析法』 東京: 共立出版.
  • 柳井晴夫・高木廣文 (編) (1986). 『多変量解析ハンドブック』 京都: 現代数学社.
  • リーチ, G.・池上嘉彦・上田明子・長尾真・山田進 (監修) (2006). 『ロングマン英和辞典』 東京: 桐原書店.
  • 綿貫陽・宮川幸久・須貝猛敏・高松尚弘 (2000). 『ロイヤル英文法』 東京: 旺文社.
  • twitter
  • livedoor クリップ
  • はてなブックマーク
  • delicious
  • Yahoo! ブックマーク
  • niftyブックマーク
  • Buzzurl
 

最近更新したページ

最新コメント

QRコード

Wikiをはじめる

マイページ