Mokslinio ir grožinio stiliaus sakinio ilgis

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXIII (1995) GRAMMATICS IR LEXICOLOGY AUDRONĖ BITINIENĖ SCIENTIFIC IR GROŽINIO STYLE SAKINIO LENGTH Functional language styles are usually studied from a qualitative point of view: trends in the selection and arrangement of certain language tools are examined. In the stylistics of Lithuanian language, fictional scientific ir styles are characterized by such characteristics as visual concreteness, emotionality, individuality and abstractness, logic, objectivity (Pikčilingis 1971 : 287). However, this approach can be supplemented by a quantitative aspect, since the concept of trend is statistical: the greater or lesser activity of the language means, described by the words "often", "rarely", etc., is determined by the researcher by observing their "statistical behavior". After analyzing a sufficiently large sample, it is not difficult to calculate how often, say, in Lithuanian scientific texts, a factor is expressed in verb conjunction or what percentage of all compound sentences is made up of causal sentences. Among all the features of functional styles, a special place is occupied by the length of the sentence. This quantitative indicator provides not only stylistic information, but at the same time is a component of the sentence structure; a sentence of one or two words is fundamentally different in structure from a sentence of 50 words. On the other hand, the choice of sentences and the nature of their extension depend on the sphere of activity, the prevailing function of language, content and other conditions of language functioning. Thus, the length of the sentence implies both qualitative and quantitative aspects of the examination of the functional style. Therefore, the sentence length of different languages is studied quite often. The length of the sentence is studied in various aspects. In some works, the view is held that sentence length is an element of grammar that is directly related to the development of the grammar structure of the language (Admoni 1966). In other cases, sentence length is examined in the context of language statistics (Meier 1964; Herdan 1960). There are also numerous studies treating sentence length as a pozymi, differentiating functional styles (Jleccxuc 1962; Įlojie>xxeji 1964; Mucrpur 1967; Arader 1963; Eggers 1962; Tėšitelova 1980) or individual style (Yule 1939; Bamak 1974). In Lithuanian language history, the length of the sentence is described by J. Pikčilingis. He points out that "the style of speech determines the length of a sentence in one way or another" (1971: 137). The purpose of this article is to approximate the sentence length of scientific and fictional styles; such analysis continues the tradition of stylistic research of the Lithuanian language. Each statistical survey is required to provide an operational definition of the objects under consideration, i.e. a scientific concept that would help to unequivocally describe this object. A sentence is considered to be a section of text from dot to dot or another punctuation mark indicating the formal ending of a sentence (Ammonm 1973: 15). The unit of measurement of sentence length is a word, i.e. a grapheme or a string of grapheme separated by intervals. Such definitions specify which section of the text is considered a sentence and which a grapheme is a word; This is especially relevant in scientific texts, where abbreviations of names are quite common, concepts are expressed by symbols, non-alphabetic signs, etc. 169 ir — lu ir The research sample consisted of various scientific disciplines (humanities, nature, mathematics, technology) post-script ir (theoretical, educational, methodological) texts, of 34 which iš thousands of sentences were randomly 10 selected, prose ir (author’s narrative) texts, of which thousands of 32 sentences iš were also analyzed. 10 Only the length of each ne sentence was analyzed, but some features of the sentence ir structure, the type of sentence and the number of elements of — the compound sentence. In determining the sentence type, the classification of sentences presented in "Lithuanian grammar" was used. Data processed (1976) VU In the computation center statistical analysis program "Paula", written PL/1 language. When discussing the results obtained, it is necessary į to take into account two conditions: first, abstraction is made from the length of words, jų lexical ir grammatical meaning, i.e. all words in a sentence are treated as equivalent; secondly, the length of each sentence is measured by the whole number of words, so the attributes, which are jo described in tenths or even hundredths, ar are a kind of abstraction. To strictly describe the length of a sentence, we have to give the percentage of sentences with a length from one word to the maximum possible number of words (in our sample — — 121 word). But this inconvenience would be ir even incomprehensible to the reader. Therefore, practically all researchers operate on the basic parameters of the distribution of sentence length frequencies, the average sentence length (x). However, this parameter is too approximate to describe the real distribution of sentences in texts, so other parameters are necessary — standard deviation (s), coefficient of variation (v), amplitude of fluctuation. The asymmetry of the distribution is of fundamental importance: the frequencies of sentence length are usually arranged with positive asymmetry, i.e. the mean length exceeds both the modal (most frequent) and the median (dividing the sample into two equal parts) sentence length (see Table 1). Table 1 Parameters of sentence length distributions in scientific and fictional styles Func. Vid. Stand. Variac. | Svyrav. | Median | Fashion | Asymmetrical. | Coef. style length * | deviation. s | coef. v | ampl. stand. withdraw. Scientific 18,0 8,8 48,8 2—57 16,3 16 0,79 0,06 Threat 12,3 9,9 80,5 1121] 10,4 5 0,93 0,04 į The data presented in the table indicate that the ir sentence length of the scientific fiction style is different. The statistical significance of this difference (regarding the į sample size) is assessed as follows. Medium length t= 3,38, p<< t.y. 0,001, the difference in mean length is statistically absolute. The difference in standard deviations is ne so pronounced (t= 2,1, p< 0,05), but also statistically significant. 170 Sufficiently significant differences in asymmetry coefficients (t= 2,0, p< 0,05); The statistical significance of the differences ir in the coefficient of variation, the amplitude of variation, the median of the mode is difficult to verify in this case, but absolute differences do not raise doubts. Although the lengths of the sentences in both styles are distributed by right asymmetry, in the aesthetic style this feature is much more pronounced. The median moda of the scientific style distribution ir differs from the average length by two words, in the artistic style moda differs even by words o 7 (median ir here differs by two words). Scientific style sentence length distribution is more compact (smaller amplitude, smaller standard deviation with larger mean length). In other words, the sentence length of fictional texts varies more than the sentence length of scientific texts. For a more detailed analysis of sentence length, especially to reveal the influence of linguistic and extralinguistic factors, it is useful to group sentences and calculate the ir frequencies of such length groups. In literature, sentences are grouped in many different ways. Some authors distinguish groups of equal and unequal length intervals without providing a qualitative assessment of these groups (Crarucruąuzi 1967), others qualitatively assess the grouped sentences: short sentences — up to 20 words, long — from 20 to 60 words, very long — more than 60 words (Meier 1964: 186). It should be noted that the grouping basis is usually not specified, not related to functional stylistics or syntax needs. In this study, the grouping of sentences according to length intervals was based on statistical criteria: the basis of the interval boundaries are the percentiles of the empirical (sample) distribution, the "jumps" of the integral distribution corresponding to sentence lengths. These limits resulted in five informative sentence length groups: very short sentences — up to and including 8 words, short — from 9 to 17 words, medium — from 18 to 30 words, long — from 31 to 46 words, very long — 47 and more words (see Table 2). 2 table Distribution of sentence length groups (percentages) Sentence | Very Short | Medium | Long Very long groups | short length long Style 1—8 9—17 18—30 31—46 | 47 and more words | zodziy | zodziy words | words Scientific 10,4 42,8 38,3 7,8 0,7 Dramatic 43,0 36,2 15,8 3,8 1,2 It is clear that the frequencies of the sentence groups of the scientific and dramatic styles differ by one "phase", i.e. in the scientific style the most common are short and medium-length sentences, and in the dramatic style — very short and short sentences; sentences of these groups in each style make up about 80 percent. The data show that the sentences of all groups are to be considered as differential features of scientific and fictional style (differences are statistically significant at the 171 p < 0,001). The differential power of very short sentences is particularly pronounced. When this group is divided into į subgroups, it becomes clear that 1—2 ir 3—5 sentences of word length are five times more common in fictional texts than in scientific texts. Šį fact could be explained as follows. When a scientific text is attempted to operate with very short sentences (it is assumed that such text is more accessible to the recipient), the problem of redundancy is encountered. su — 1 /3 text (Schlesinger 1968 : 73). Thus, the emphasis on logic as the main feature — of scientific style — explains the lack of very short sentences. On the other hand, the frequency of very long sentences in fictional style texts exceeds the frequency of very long sentences in scientific (o texts by a great deal: — the excessively complex sentence structure of a scientific text can be an obstacle to the perception of abstract scientific information. Visuality, visual specificity, artistic accuracy, not saying it to — the end ir (Župerka 1983) — allows the text to be organized on the jų basis of associations, connectors connecting ne sentences are always necessary, implicit ways of connecting sentences prevail. The intersection zone of both functional styles consists of 12—17 subgroups of words sentences, almost equally frequent in both styles (scientific %, — 14,8 — 16,3 % ). Thus, such sentences can be regarded as an invariant feature of both styles, a "linguistic constant" ([onexxen 1964 : 24). It can be assumed that sentences in this range are optimal for perception and memorization: an adult memorizes sentences of 15-17 words best, the optimal perception limit is 20 words (Ogburn 1963: 101). Of course, these boundaries cannot be made absolute, because they depend on many extralinguistic factors — the nature of the conveyed information, the type of text, the characteristics of the recipient, etc. Sentence length is considered a function of sentence structure (Jlecckuc 1962: 83), so it is necessary to take into account the distribution of solid and compound sentences in spoken styles and their length. In the scientific style, compound sentences prevail (55.9 per cent), in fictional texts their frequency is lower (46.5 per cent); difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The prevalence of compound sentences in scientific style is stable and depends little on extralinguistic factors (branch of science, postil, author). It is well known that the scientific style is characterized by stereotyping; the author of a scientific text must be comfortable with the idea that his publication will be similar to another work on the same topic. A peculiar syntactic pattern is only a certain possibility, the realization of which depends on the individual characteristics of the author of the scientific work as a language user (Buuoxyp but on his qualification as a specialist. 1980 : 122), ne Such stability is not found in fictional texts; in them a lot comes from the author: the frequency of continuous sentences ranges from %. 26 (Mushinsk) up to %. 70 (Brown, William). This fluctuation may depend on which syntactic type of prose is syntagmatic — (hierarchical) ar fragmented (updated) prevails in a specific me fictional text. The length of sentences increases in syntagmatic prose when "a single sentence is integrated into į one complex syntactic cycle" (Apyr:onosa 1972 : 163). In fragmented prose texts, hierarchical links are drawn, each element of information is the basis of a single sentence. For example: : 172 They grabbed the blackened porches of the houses, the door handles, the thresholds, the ploughs, the harrows left in the fields, and, penetrating through the treetops, wherever they could, they placed their hands. Kristupas su Kazimieru pegged the bottom of the boat with stakes, licked the blackened alder leaves that had covered the ground, it ir seemed that they would immediately be dressed in a harness, when these ir men would go in nets through the meadows, su they would be white from the frost, the December-compressed soil would be ir covered po with their feet (Radz PV 99). Ir it was night. Find a ir kieme. It's night everywhere. Dark, deep, long, silent. The cover of the lamp on deck cracked. It's screwed up. To make kerosene draw less (White SJ 250). Liudas Skirmonis smiles. One-haired, with cold-colored lips. For home. For passers-- by. Finally, it is for a peeling brick wall (Avyž Ch S 8). Even more pronounced styles differ in ir the length of solid compound sentences (Table 3). 3 Table 1 Distributions of single-line and compound sentence length groups (percentage) Sentence groups very short | medium | long very Type of sentences Style | short length long 1—8 9—17 18—30 31—46 | 47 ir dg. words | words | words words | words Scientific 20,4 46,9 28,8 3,6 0,3 Unlinear Aesthetic 68,5 26,9 4,2 0,3 0,0 Scientific 2,4 29,3...» 50.0 17.4 0.9 Compounds Aesthetic 13.7 46.9 29.1 7.7 2.6 Perhaps the most obvious feature of scientific style, which this table shows, is the complexity of solid sentences. Although their percentage is lower than in the fine style, they are significantly longer than in fictional texts (Xm = 14.5; Xg = 74; sm = 7.6; sg = 5.1). In other words, in scientific texts functions a lot of complex structured solid sentences, extended by lines of homogeneous sentence parts, participatory groups of words, insertions and insertions. These sentences are comparable to compound sentences in terms of their ability to convey detailed and objectively accurate information, which explains their frequency in scientific texts. The simplicity of the structure of solid sentences in fictional style texts (of course, compared to scientific style) is confirmed by the fact that sentences consisting of 1-2 words are 5.3% in fictional texts and only 1.5% in scientific texts. — 0,3 Another picture of the functioning of compound sentences. Although the mean length differed statistically (Xm = 21.2; *g = 17.7; p< 0.001), this difference did not 173 qualitative meaning. This becomes clear when we break down the compound sentences in more detail (4 table). 4 Table 1 Indicators of length distributions of compound sentences Scientific style Aesthetic style % x S % * S ~ Sakiniy species Combined 11,8: 206...77. 159. 14,8 7,3 Attachable 68,2 19,7 8,1 405 15,5 8,0 Switches 63 . 22,3 82 181 13,7 1.4 Mixed 137 285 7,8 255 263 M5 It can be seen that scientific style compound sentences are on average longer than fictional uz sentences; approximately equal standard deviations indicate that this difference is invariant. The only exception are — mixed sentences, whose distribution in fictional texts is characterized by a larger standard deviation, thus a much larger range of ir length variation. Among the mixed compound sentenc1,3 es of fictional style, per cent. consists of very short (up to 8 words) ir 8,7 % — very long (more than words) 47 sentences. For comparison, it should be noted that the mixed compound sentences of scientific texts are more standard: very short sentences were not recorded in total, very long sentences only in %. iš o — 0,7 of the jų total number. In contrast, ir the functional styles of composed unconjunctive sentences differ: in fictional texts more jų than in scientific texts, they are much shorter This tendency is (p < 0,001). determined by the important feature of fictional style, dynamics — (the opposite property of scientific style — static). Relatively short, short sentences in this style help to convey the change of events, their rhythm, create tension, i.e. take over the additional semantic load of the text. Scientific texts aim to emphasize logical connections, to describe them more precisely, so preference is given to connecting sentences; this tendency is typical of all scientific texts, regardless of the branch of science and the postill. Connective sentences, which define "pure" logical relationships (of purpose, condition, cause, concession, etc.), are considered relevant characteristics of scientific style. When describing phenomena of reality, synchronously expressing a thought, co-reading, indicative and explanatory sentences are used (such connective sentences are also abundant in scientific texts). The possibilities of development of a compound sentence, depending on its "average grammatical potential" (Ipuesa 1969: 174), are determined by the number of elements (Table 5). Hite A Yes 5 + As | : Lt 1G AOL DAP ia Eid 1 a ryt | . a | el AOUJAX9) 9E20111n1soint - = m . . ) ARS HUSOTR ‘UIS DOS \ -— | 24 t already a „20174 ti () Aid yet . wiz iL | : ; t adis Classics nonAaul pinpisa vtaitėbuvaadoli table AH 174 5 Distribution of compound sentences with su different number of elements Style Number of spots 2 3 4" 5—6 T7-8 9 ir many. Scientific 66,0 260 60 1,48 0,2 0,0 Beauty 57,6 24,2 9,7 64 1,3 0,8 Thus, although the average length of composed sentences in fictional texts is lower, the jų number of elements is higher. In both styles, two-element sentences are the most common, but in jų scientific the frequency is higher (the difference is statistically significant, p < 0,001). In scientific texts, very little (not recorded in this study) sentences that have more than 8 elements (although such a sentence is not easy to understand!). In fictional texts, however, there are sentences with up to 15 elements. This tendency is confirmed by the complexity coefficient of sentences (average number of points): in literary style it is equal to 2.8, in scientific — 2.2. There is also another difference: the length of the elements of composed sentences in fictional style (Xg = 6.3, sg = 4.3) differs little from the length of solid sentences, while solid sentences in scientific style are much longer than the elements of composed sentences (*m = 9.2, sm = 6.5). In the scientific style, continuous sentences are often adequate for compound sentences, assuming their functions; Linguists who have studied the scientific style of other languages have pointed to this tendency. It is different in the stylistic. The slight difference between the length of the elements of solid sentences and compound sentences, the frequency of non-conjunctive and conjunctive sentences indicates greater independence of the elements; the length of fictional sentences depends primarily on the number of points. For example, the elements of the compound sentences of the texts T1 (Aputis) and T2 (Drumnys) are almost equal in length, but the complexity coefficient of these sentences differs significantly — 3.8 and 2.0. It is possible to calculate a summarizing index of sentence length when the unit is the length of the dot of compound sentences (AkxumMosa 1973: 74). According to this indicator, the length of solid and composite sentences in fictional texts is estimated in the ratio 1: 1.2: 2.8, and in scientific texts — 1: 1.6: 2.3. Such indicators once again confirm the already discussed phenomenon: in fictional texts, independent continuous sentences and elements of compound sentences have the same development tendencies, while in scientific style, continuous compound sentences are characterized by common development tendencies. LITERACY 1. Arader H. Sentence and Word Length in Scientific Writing. —Essays on Thinking and Writing in Science, Engineering and Business. Iowa, 1963, p. ir 232—238. ar a You know a tir hehe bi 2. Eggers H. On the Syntax of the German Language of the Present. —Studium Generale, i 1. 1962. p. 49-59. 175 3. Beneš E. Syntactic Peculiarities of the German scientific Technical language. — German as A foreign language. H. 3, 1966, S. 26—36. | 4. Herd an G. Type-token mathematics. — Mouton and s'Gravenhage, 1960. ie 5. Yule G. U. On a Sentence Length as a Statistical Charakteristic of Style in Prose. — Biometrics, 1939, N. 30. , : 6. Kraus J. Introductido on to stylistics for information workers. Prague, 1977. 7. Meier H. German Language statistics. Bd. 1, Hildesheim, 1964. 8. Ogburn W.F. On Scientific Writing. — In. : Essays on Thinking and Writing in Science, Engineering and Business. Iowa, 1963, p. 92—105. 9. Pikčilingis J. Lithuanian language stylistics. T. 1. V., 1971. 10. Schlesinger I. M. Sentence Structure and the Reading Process. The The Hague-Paris, 1968. ' 11. Těšitelova M. Use statistical methods of v grammar. Prague, 1980. 12. Župerka K. Lithuanian language stylistics. V., 1983. 183. An mMonu B.I'. PazpuTHe cTpyKTYDpEI OIpageJ102*x*0HHSA B INepHojį dopmnpPOBAHMS HeMelKoro s3sika. Jlenurpan, 1966. 14. AnmMouu B.I. The Illyrians were in a hurry. CTPOA B HEMEL KOM s3sike. Mocksa, 1973. 15. Ax u mo Ba I". H Paamep PenjioskeHus Sister. GaxToOp I'm sorry, I'm H sorry. — Bonp. s3mixosnanus, 1973, N21, c. 67—79. 16. A pynmrioxoBsa MW. JI. OcCHHTAKCHYECKMX THNAX XYyAOXKecTBeHHOM npo3sl. O6mee u poMaHcKoe s351K0O3HaHHMe. Mocksa, 1972. 17. Bama x II. 1998-1999 [not known] H OAJIMHA NpeAJIOJKEeHHS B TeKCTAX OAHOro aBTopa. — Bonpocsr craTucTHyeckoft ctunucTuku. Kuen, 1974, c. 314—329. 18. Buunokyp T.I. 3aKkOHOMEPHOCTH CTH/IHCTHYECKOIO HCMOJ/Ib30OBAHHA A3BIKOBBIX eauMHHUN. Mocksa, 1980. 19. Jonexen Ji. BepoaTHOCTHHIA nonxoji K TEOpHH XYHOXeCTBEHHOro cTuns. - Bonp. s23s51Kx03HaHHa, 1964, N= 2, 19—29. 20. Jleccxkuc I. A. O paamepax npeaio’keHus B pycckoft HayuHoft npose 60-x ronos XIX sexa. - Bonp. s3sikosnauus, 1962, N= 2, c. 78—05. 21. MucTtpuk M. MaTeMaTHKO-CTATHCTHYECKHE METOALI B CTHAMCTHKE. —Bomnp. s3s1K03HaHHs, 1967, N= 8, c. 42—52. 22. CraTucTHuHI napamerpi cTual B. Kunis, 1967. 23. A puesa B. H. Ilpenenst pa3BepTLIBAHHA CHHTAKCHYECKHX CTPYKTyp B cBA3H ¢ oGteMOM HHOĖdOOopManLHH. - B kH. : VHusapuaHTHELIC CHHTAKCHYECKHE 3HAYEHHMH HM CTPYKTYpa npejuJIioxeHHs. Mocksa, 1969, c. 163—177. SALTINIAI _ MOKSLINE LITERATURA 1. Basalykas A. Lietuvos TSR krastovaizdis. V., 1977. 2. Bernatonis J. Mikroelementy įtaka rūgščių pieno produktų gamybai ir jų savybės. V., 1980. 3. Dagys J. Augalų ekologija. V., 1980. 4. Davidavičius E. Galvanotechnika ir jos panaudojimas. V., 1979. {oa Dundulis B. Lietuva Napoleono agresijos metais (1807—1812). V., 6. Fiziologija. V., 1978. 7. Gečiauskas S.,Klimka L. Naujieii laidininkiniai mi aS isa jieji puslaidininkiniai mikrobangų 8. Gelzbetonines konstrukcijos. V., 1978. 9. Girdenis A. Fonologija. V., 1981. 10. Girdzijauskas J. Lietuviy eiledara. V., 1979. 11. Gulbinas A, Norvilas H, Rauckis R. Masiny gamybos techninio paruošimo automatizavimas. V., 1978. 176 12. Jasinskas L, Adomas R., Raguotienė N. Organinė chemija. V., 1979. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. gydym 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. EE Se 9. Januškevičiūtė A. Klinikinė fonokardiologija. V., 1979. Jovaiša L. Psichologinė diagnostika. K., 1975. Kabailienė M. Taikomosios polinologijos pagrindai. V., 1979. Kapustininkaitė T. Alksnynai. V., 1983. Kareckas L. Kombinuotieji pašarai. V., 1981. Kubilius J. Tikimybių teorija ir matematinė statistika. V., 1980. Kumpikas L. Mašinų gamybos technologijos pagrindai. V., 1978. Lozuraitis A. Tiesair vertybė. V., 1980. Mačionis A. Stuburiniai gyvūnai. V., 1981. Mickūnas S. Elektrodinamikos pagrindai. V., 1975. Midvikas D. Polių darbai. V., 1978. Mokslinė-techninė pažanga ir gamybos efektyvumas. V., 1983. Nainys V. Virpesiai ir triukšmas pramonėje. V., 1972. Pedagogika. V., 1981. Psichologijos paskaitos. V., 1980. Raugalė A, Mitūzas H, Vaičiuvėnas V. Vaikų ligų as antimikrobiniais preparatais. V., 1983. Sauka D. Lietuvių tautosaka. V., 1982. Svogūnų auginimas. V., 1980. Šeštokas V. Keliai, transportas, miestai. V., 1976. Šimakauskas S. Elektra automobilyje ir motocikle. V., 1979. Urbutis V. Žodžių darybos teorija. V., 1978. Vasiliauskas R. Mokinių darbštumo ugdymas. K., 1983. GROŽINĖ LITERATŪRA tis J. Gegužė ant nulūžusio beržo. V., 1986. tis J. Skruzdėlynas Prūsijoje. V., 1989. tis J. Keleivio novelės. V., 1985. žius J. Žmogus lieka žmogumi. V., 1975. žius J. Sodybų tuštėjimo metas. V., 1977. žius J. Chameleono spalvos. V., 1979. nys V. Alkana žemė. Po vasaros dangum. Nesėtų rugių žydėjimas. E << <gTT ooh lle oie ge ge ie 2g u u u y y y b b ubnys V. Pilnaties valandą. V., 1980. Baltušis J. Parduotos vasaros. T. II. V., 1969. „Baltušis J. Su kuo valgyta druska. T.I. V., 1979. „Baltušis J. Sakmė apie Juzą. V., 1979. „Bieliauskas A. Kauno romanas. V., 1973. „Bieliauskas A. Ramūis laikai. V., 1983. „Bieliauskas A. Mes dar susitiksim, Vilma! V., 1975. „Dirgėla P., Dirgėla P. Žaibai gęsta rudenį. V., 1971. „Dirgėla P., Dirgėla P.Salavijy kalnas. V., 1977. „Dirgėla P, Dirgėla P. Sermenų vynas. V., 1980. „Granauskas R. Gyvenimas po klevu. V., 1988. „Granauskas R. Baltas vainikas juodam garvežiui. 1987. „Granauskas R. Duonos valgytojai. V., 1975. „Ivanauskaitė J. Mėnulio vaikai. V., 1988. „Ivanauskaitė J. Kaip užsiauginti baimę. V., 1979. .Jacineviéius L. Apysakos. V., 1981. .Jacineviéius L. Arbata penktą valandą ryto. V., 1979. .Jacineviéius L. Atmink pradžią. V., 1986. „Jasukaitytė V. Stebuklinga patvorių žolė. V., 1987. „Jasukaitytė V. Balandė, kuri lauks. V., 1989. . Kašauskas R. Mažos mūsų nuodėmės. V., 1975. „Kašauskas R. Suaugusiųjų žaidimai. V., 1988. 177