Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 1845–1864

www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

And stuff und so: Investigating pragmatic

expressions in English and German
Maryann Overstreet *
University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Department of Languages and Literatures of Europe and the Americas,
1890 East-West Road, Moore Hall #483, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
Received 23 October 2003; received in revised form 25 February 2004; accepted 5 February 2005

Abstract

This article offers a comparative analysis of a group of pragmatic expressions called ‘general
extenders’ (e.g., and stuff, und so; or something, oder so) in recorded English and German
conversation among adult familiars. After comparing the frequency and distribution of these forms
in two databases, I illustrate how general extenders are used in both languages to mark assumptions of
being similar, informative, accurate and polite. A cross-linguistic comparison of these pragmatic
expressions reveals that forms that are different on a formal level seem to have functional similarities
within comparable contexts of occurrence. This type of cross-linguistic study may help analysts more
accurately define the core functions of pragmatic expressions and develop a suitable metalanguage
for describing them.
# 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Comparative analysis; General extenders; German language; Gricean pragmatics; Intersubjectivity;
Pragmatic markers; Pragmatic expressions

1. Introduction

Over the past few years, increasing interest in spoken interaction has focused the
attention of researchers on a large, somewhat vaguely defined set of linguistic expressions
variously referred to as ‘discourse particles’ (Schourup, 1985; Kroon, 1995; Aijmer, 2002),
‘pragmatic particles’ (Östman, 1981; Holmes, 1988), ‘pragmatic markers’ (Watts, 1988;

* Tel.: +1 808 956 4172; fax: +1 808 956 9536.

E-mail address: [email protected].

0378-2166/$ – see front matter # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.015
1846 M. Overstreet / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 1845–1864

Brinton, 1996; Fraser, 1996; Andersen and Fretheim, 2000; Andersen, 2001), ‘pragmatic
operators’ (Ariel, 1994), or ‘pragmatic expressions’ (Erman, 1987). This set includes a
number of expressions which occur ‘either outside the syntactic structure or loosely
attached to it’ (Brinton, 1996: 34), such as you know, I mean, so, oh, well, and anyway, and
are most commonly referred to as ‘discourse markers’ (Schiffrin, 1987; Jucker and Ziv,
1998; Fraser, 1999; Schourup, 1999). It also includes a subset of expressions which are
typically connected to sentence structure and less flexible in their syntactic distribution,
such as and stuff, and everything, or something, and or anything. This latter group of
expressions has been variously referred to as ‘general extenders’ (Overstreet, 1999),
‘generalized list completers’ (Jefferson, 1990; Lerner, 1994), ‘set markers’ (Stenström
et al., 2002), ‘set-marking tags’ (Dines, 1980; Ward and Birner, 1993), and ‘vague category
identifiers’ (Channell, 1994). I have chosen to refer to the broad, superordinate set of
linguistic forms which includes discourse markers and general extenders as ‘pragmatic
expressions’, because it seems to be the most neutral and inclusive label, and does not seem
to be restricted to one theoretical perspective or a particular framework of analysis.
Pragmatic expressions have been studied in many languages other than English,
including, for example, Cantonese (Luke, 1990), Finnish (Hakulinen, 1998), French
(Gülich, 1970; Hansen Mosegaard, 1998; Beeching, 2002), German (Weydt, 1987;
Willkop, 1988; Abraham, 1991; König and Requardt, 1991; Fischer, 2000), Hebrew
(Mashler, 1998; Shloush, 1998), Japanese (Onodera, 1995; Suzuki, 1998), Latin (Kroon,
1995), and Norwegian (Andvik, 1992). While there have been some contrastive studies
(e.g., Park, 1998; Takahara, 1998; Hasund, 2001; Aijmer and Simon-Vandenbergen, in
press), the vast majority of research has been done on English, and there have been
relatively few attempts to generalize findings across languages.
Recently, some researchers have criticized this ‘overdependence on English’ and called
for more cross-linguistic studies, as in this critique of discourse marker (DM) research:

Of the most immediate importance among such issues are those concerning the
extent to which generalizations which have been made about English DMs can be
carried over to other languages. Are there functions which have been overlooked in
DM research because of overdependence on English? Are there languages for which
the DM category is either more or less highly restricted grammatically than in
English? Do some languages lack DMs altogether, and if so what, if anything, do
speakers of such languages do to carry out the same functions DMs perform
elsewhere? (Schourup, 1999: 261).

It has been suggested that, in addition to answering questions like these, a cross-linguistic
comparison of pragmatic expressions may also help us to identify their core functions
and arrive at a suitable metalanguage for describing these functions (Aijmer, 2002).
In this paper, I will compare the distribution and function of a group of pragmatic
expressions that are commonly used in English and German spoken interaction, but have
received relatively little attention from analysts. After a comparison of the frequency and
distribution of the forms in a database of recorded interaction among adult familiars, I will
review some of the apparent similarities and differences in their pragmatic functions. I will
address questions such as: Do comparable forms of these pragmatic expressions occur in
 M. Overstreet / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 1845–1864 1847

reliably comparable contexts, with similar patterns of co-occurrence, across the two
languages? When they do, can we treat these forms as having comparable functions in terms
of politeness, for example, or hedges on expectations of accuracy and informativeness?

2. General extenders

As noted above, the group of expressions under consideration have been described in
different ways with different labels. There is no established term for these forms in
traditional grammar other than being included in descriptions of ‘vague language’
(Channell, 1994). In my own research, originally focusing on spoken American English, I
have called these expressions ‘general extenders’ (Overstreet, 1999). In English, general
extenders are typically phrase- or clause-final expressions with the basic syntactic
structure, conjunction + noun phrase, which extend otherwise complete utterances (hence,
‘extenders’). They are also non-specific in their reference (hence, ‘general’). The group can
be divided into those beginning with and, called ‘adjunctive general extenders’, and those
beginning with or, called ‘disjunctive general extenders’.
I have argued that, when used in spoken interaction among familiars, the English forms
serve a predominantly interpersonal function, to underscore assumptions of intersubjectivity,
as politeness strategies, as hedges on Gricean Quality and Quantity, and as intensifiers
(Overstreet, 1999). Like other pragmatic expressions, general extenders appear to be used to
‘‘convey metalinguistic messages concerning either speaker–utterance, addressee–utterance,
utterance–utterance relations, or else they constitute an interpersonal communication
between speaker and addressee’’ (Ariel, 1994: 3250). It is because their function is primarily
interpersonal and not referential that I have avoided the type of analytic terminology that
has been used in previous studies to label these forms in terms of a single referential
function (e.g., ‘list completers’, ‘set markers’, ‘category identifiers’).

3. Data

This study is based on the analysis of original data from recorded telephone
conversations and face-to-face interactions among familiars, primarily in dyads. All
participants consented to their conversations being recorded.
The English database, consisting of 10 h of conversation, included eighteen individuals
(eleven females and seven males), whose ages ranged from twenty-three to sixty-four. All
were native speakers of English from various parts of the United States (Alabama, California,
Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Washington D.C.). The
German database, consisting of 14 h of conversation, included twenty individuals (twelve
females and eight males), whose ages ranged from 20 to 56. All were native speakers of
German from Germany (Aschaffenburg, Berlin, Bochum, Frankfurt, Hannover, Heidelberg,
Pforzheim) and Switzerland (Zürich). The portions of the recordings that contain general
extenders were transcribed to include relevant co-text in the form of preceding and
subsequent utterances, as well as sufficient detail for a fine-grained analysis. The
transcription conventions are based on those found in Atkinson and Heritage (1984).
1848 M. Overstreet / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 1845–1864

While I recognize the value of large-scale corpora for the study of the range and
frequency of linguistic forms (e.g., Aijmer, 2002; Stenström et al., 2002), I made a
conscious effort to collect my own data from people I knew, as I had found it difficult in
earlier investigations to get ‘inside’ the events represented in existing corpora (e.g.,
Svartvik and Quirk, 1980) or to have insights into what the words meant for the anonymous
individuals who produced them in unknown contexts. In analyzing my data, I believe I
benefitted tremendously from knowing the participants, their backgrounds, relationships,
and the contexts of their utterances.

3.1. Frequency and distribution

In Table 1, I have listed the more frequent forms found in the two databases. Note that
although the German database was larger, it contained fewer occurrences. However, in both
databases, disjunctive forms outnumbered adjunctive forms. These are observations on my
own databases, which remain to be confirmed in other data sources.

Table 1
Forms occurring three or more times
English (10 h)
and all 3
and all that stuff 4
and blah blah blah 4
and everything 12
and stuff 29
and things like that 3
or anything 19
or something 42
or something like that 4
or what 4
or whatever 16
Total adjunctive 67
Total disjunctive 89
Total 156

German (14 h)
und so 32
und so weiter 3
und was weiß ich 3
und (so’n) Zeug 3
und solche Sachen 3
und alles Mögliche 3
und so was 3
oder so 46
oder so was 19
oder was weiß ich 10
Total adjunctive 57
Total disjunctive 90
Total 147
 M. Overstreet / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 1845–1864 1849

4. Formal similarities and differences

Although German general extenders exhibit a close formal similarity to their English
counterparts, they are not by any means identical. For example, consider the most
frequently occurring adjunctive and disjunctive forms in each language: and stuff/or
something and und so/oder so. While German uses the same form (so), English has two
distinct forms in the adjunctive (stuff) and the disjunctive (something) versions.
Aijmer has noted that ‘‘the high frequency of certain types of short invariable
expressions (and things, or something) suggests that they have become automatic’’ (2002:
223). Indeed, in both English and German, general extenders seem to function as highly
formulaic expressions. Instead of unpacking their meaning, language users seem to treat
them as units that do not require any further processing. This must be taken into
consideration when attempting to translate, as word-for-word translations would inevitably
produce infelicitous forms.
In addition to variations in form, German general extenders also differ from English
general extenders in their grammatical distribution. Whereas the English forms tend to
appear in clause-final position, the German forms also occur in clause-internal positions,
immediately preceding past participles (1), or prior to verbs in subordinate clauses
(2).

(1) Ich hab’ nun jetzt erstmal meine ganzen Pflanzen da in die Erde gebracht
und—und—sehr viel Tulpen und Krokusse und so was gesteckt.
I’ve just got all my plants there in the ground and—and—lots of tulips and
crocuses und so was put in.

(2) Die Hawaier akzeptierten immer die Homosexualität! Für sie war das eine
natürliche Sache, weil sie instinktiv wußten, daß in jeder Population, ich weiß
nicht, vier oder fünf Prozent oder so sind.

The Hawaiians always accepted homosexuality! For them it was a natural

thing, because they knew instinctively that in every population, I don’t know,
four or five percent oder so are.

It should be emphasized that these observations regarding grammatical distribution are

merely observed tendencies within the larger database. In English, certain forms (i.e., and
stuff) may be in the process of becoming more flexible with regard to position, at least in
the speech of some individuals or groups. An example of this is offered in (3), where two
nurses are discussing the events of the previous day.

(3) Karen: So (1.0) a::nyway, no I sta—I sta—I got out of here by a quarter till
yesterday an’ stuff. I didn’t (1.0) see that last patient.
Donna: You mean quarter to four.
Karen: Yeah, an’ stuff—after I took care—after I took care of the body, so.
I just figured I didn’t wanna leave that hanging till the evening shift.
1850 M. Overstreet / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 1845–1864

For this particular speaker, the habitual use of and stuff appears to have become a kind of
reflex marker of solidarity, much like y’know, and occurs in many positions other than phrase-
or clause-final. The use of and stuff as a solidarity marker will be discussed in Section 5.1.1.
It should also be noted that in English, while general extenders tend to occur with a
conjunction, there are observable uses where a normally present conjunction (and blah
blah blah) is missing:

(4) It’s just about, you know, questions like, you know, are you still coming the
twelfth, do you need me to meet you somewhere, blah blah blah.

Because this phenomenon is sufficiently infrequent in my English database, I have not tried
to analyze the circumstances under which this elision takes place.
I did not find any occurrences of general extenders without a conjunction in my German
database. However, I did note the occurrence of one type of general extender which had no
English analog and consisted only of a repeated conjunction:

(5) Denn Pferde selbst zu haben kann sehr teuer werden—Veterinäre, weißt du,
Tierarztkosten, und Futter, und und und
Because having your own horses can become very expensive—Veterinarians, you
know, veterinary costs, and feed und und und
In this specifically German usage, the repeated conjunction und und und seems to indicate
that much more could be added. The use of compound or reduplicated forms will be
addressed in Section 5.1.3.
As a final note with regard to formal similarities and differences, a general observation
can be made about prosody. In both English and German, general extenders are typically
uttered with low pitch and unstressed. As we will see in Section 5.2.3, when general
extenders in both languages are given phonological prominence, they appear to be
functioning as intensifiers.

5. Identifying shared functions

As I began my analysis of general extenders in German, it was relatively easy to identify

the forms that fit the structural definition that I had used in my English study. However,
identifying comparable functions across the two languages was not as simple. The attempt
to locate any previous research on these forms was complicated by the fact that, to my
knowledge, there is no established label for them and they have not received significant
attention as a group of related expressions in their own right. German general extenders are
sometimes referred to as Etceteraformeln in discussions of a larger group of expressions
called lexikalische Gliederungssignale (Betten, 1976; Holly, 1979; Schwitalla, 1997). In
another study (Overstreet et al., in press), my colleagues and I described German general
extenders as allgemeine Verlängerungssignale.
In an attempt to ground my analysis in the data, I looked for similar patterns of co-
occurrence across the two languages or similar responses from interlocutors, like
 M. Overstreet / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 1845–1864 1851

backchannels or laughter. In many cases, this seemed fairly straightforward. In Sections 5.1
and 5.2, I will present a number of contextualized uses to demonstrate what I consider to be
relatively clear examples of shared functions.

5.1. Adjunctive general extenders

In this section, I will focus on the use of adjunctive forms in English and German (e.g.,
and stuff and und so). In both English and German, the primary function of adjunctive
general extenders is to indicate ‘there is more’. Previous research on these forms in English
has been undertaken with the assumption that, in using a general extender, the speaker is
attempting category-implication, so that the hearer can infer additional or alternate
instances of the category or set that the speaker has in mind (e.g., Ball and Ariel, 1978;
Channell, 1994). The arguments for and against using a set-theoretical framework for the
analysis of general extenders have been presented in detail elsewhere (Overstreet and Yule,
1997, 2002; Overstreet, 1999). To take one example: according to Ward and Birner,
felicitous use of the general extender and everything ‘‘requires that instantiations exist and
constitute members of a well-defined (and in principle enumerable) set’’ (1993: 209). This
approach seems to be based on an assumption that the function of such forms is necessarily
referential and the speaker has a specific referential set in mind. There is something
counterintuitive in this commitment to a formal framework, with highly specific referential
predictions, being applied in the analysis of forms that are generally recognized as being
vague in their reference. We might actually assume that they are vague for a reason. The
speaker may have no additional members in mind at all. Indeed, as most approaches to
categorization since Wittgenstein (1953) have recognized, we manage to arrive at
relevantly similar interpretations of categories, not on the basis of having well-defined sets
in shared mental worlds, but on an assumption of sufficient common ground despite
substantial variation in our individual mental worlds. General extenders seem better suited
to a function that is the opposite of one requiring us to construct ‘a well-defined set’. They
signal that further processing in referential terms is not required. In essence, they are used
to signal an assumption of interpersonal understanding or what is technically described as
intersubjectivity.

5.1.1. Intersubjectivity
Intersubjectivity is the process by which individuals manage to achieve interpersonal
understanding despite subjective differences. Discussions of intersubjectivity, in different
manifestations, can be found in Cicourel (1974), Garfinkel (1967), Husserl (1929/1977),
Rommetveit (1974), Schegloff (1992) and Schütz (1932/1967). Intersubjectivity is
achieved through a process that instructs interactional participants to ‘‘assume their mutual
experiences of the interaction are the same even if they were to change places’’ and to
‘‘disregard personal differences in how each assigns meaning to everyday activities, thus
each can attend the present scene in an identical manner for the practical matter at hand’’
(Cicourel, 1974). It is important to emphasize that it is the assumption of shared knowledge
and experience, not the fact, that characterizes intersubjectivity. Rather than viewing
general extenders as set-identifying devices, we might understand their uses better as
markers of intersubjectivity.
1852 M. Overstreet / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 1845–1864

In (6), the speaker is telling a friend what it’s like to take the drug Ecstasy. She compares
the experience to taking LSD and uses the form and stuff to underscore an assumption that
her interlocutor shares the same knowledge or experience.

(6) That’s what it made me feel, y’know just the colors an’ the y’know uh the way it
makes you think an’ stuff

By using the general extender and stuff, the speaker in (6) invites her interlocutor to behave
as if their experiences are similar, whether or not they actually are.
In example (7), the speaker is being nostalgic about student life in Germany, and
appealing to her interlocutor’s shared knowledge of that experience.

(7) Weißt du—ich hab’ so viele Freunde g’habt. Wir saßen oft abends lange da
mit ‘nem Gläschen Wein und hab’n uns unterhalten über Gott und die Welt.
Und—oder über Psychologie und so.
You know, I had so many friends. We often sat there for a long time in the
evening with a little glass of wine and talked about God and the world.
And—or about psychology und so.

In both (6) and (7), the speakers use an expression which indicates assumed similarity of
experience or at least an ability to understand the speaker’s experience: the discourse
marker you know or weißt du. These are both rather transparent appeals to intersubjectivity.
The co-occurrence of these forms with the general extenders may be seen as evidence that
they may be serving similar functions in these contexts.

5.1.2. Solidarity
The effect of intersubjectivity in processing terms can be tied to positive politeness in
interactive terms: to assert common ground with the hearer by demonstrating an
assumption of shared knowledge (Brown and Levinson, 1987). In both languages, there are
examples in which the general extenders seem to represent only an appeal for solidarity and
understanding and do not actually indicate any additional items. This is perhaps clearest in
the speech of individuals who use them frequently. In (8), the speaker is describing her
developing relationship with a younger man.

(8) Crystal: He’s super mature for his age though, ‘cause he’s— he sailed around
the world for four years and just sorta had older brothers y’know, and
come from a really wealthy family::=had a lot of experiences and stuff, so
he really kinda presents himself as being older.
Julie: Umhm.
Crystal: But he’s a cool guy. We’re just taking it really slo:w, ‘cause he
just got really burned and stuff and—but we had some fun.
Julie: Um//hm
Crystal: Went out sailing and stuff.
Julie: Wull good.
 M. Overstreet / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 1845–1864 1853

Through her repeated use of and stuff, Crystal is marking a general assumption that Julie
will understand and accept the portrayal of her situation because they are longtime friends
who share the same goals and values. It may also be that Crystal is looking for reassurance
that she is not making a mistake by getting involved with this younger man. She offers
several reasons why she thinks he is mature enough for her, despite his younger age.
In (9), a female from East Berlin is telling another female who is originally from East
Berlin why she was considering moving back to the East side of the city. In doing so, she is
marking an assumption that her interlocutor shares her views and will understand her
reasons for wanting to leave West Berlin.

(9) Sascha: Ich hatte schon überlegt, ob ich nich’ auszieh’ und so, weil alle meine
Leute wohnen im Osten und so
Lola: Ja:::
Sascha: und ich arbeite ja am Alex und so

Sascha: I had already considered whether I shouldn’t move out und so,
because all my people ((friends)) live in the East und so
Lola: Yea::h
Sascha: and I work on Alex ((Alexanderplatz)) und so
Throughout both of these interactions, the hearers demonstrate understanding with
(Mmhm/Ja::) and provide supportive feedback (Wull good).

5.1.3. Iconicity
In both English and German, speakers use compound or reduplicated versions of general
extenders to indicate that ‘a lot more’ could be said. Where the form is made longer,
corresponding to the message (a lot more) in this way, it may be said to exhibit iconicity. In
(10), a department chairman is giving an account as to why he will miss the upcoming
departmental Christmas party.

(10) As fate would have it, over the weekend I fractured a rib, am bandaged up and
under strong nauseating pain medication etcetera etcetera.
By using the general extender etcetera etcetera to emphasize that much more could be said,
the speaker adds strength to his excuse without having to specify what the more is.
In (11), Greg is responding to Lola’s question about what he’s been doing lately.

(11) Lola: Und was machst du so?

Greg: Ich dirigier’ viel // und hab’ Konzertreisen und was weiß ich noch alles
und so und so und so und so
Lola: Schön!

Lola: And what are you doing?

Greg: I’m conducting a lot and have concert tours und was weiß ich noch alles und so
und so und so und so.
Lola: Nice!
1854 M. Overstreet / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 1845–1864

The speaker says I’m conducting and have concert tours and ends his utterance with five
general extenders in a row: und was weiß ich noch alles/und so/und so/und so/und so. By
using this compound general extender, the speaker emphasizes that there is not only more,
but a LOT more that could be said. The specifically German use of und und und, as
illustrated in (5), seems to serve a similar purpose.

5.1.4. Evaluation
Instead of an assumption of shared knowledge as a basis for not saying the ‘more’ which
is indicated by a general extender, the speaker may wish to indicate that the ‘more’ which
could be said is of little importance. In both languages, the use of pejorative nouns as part of
the general extender is often indicative of this downgrading process. The pejorative noun
(such as garbage, crap, shit/Kram, Zeug, Scheiß) also serves to make the extender a bit
more specific.
In (12), two friends are packing for a trip. Ralf wants to know if Peter has room in his
luggage for some of Ralf’s things.

(12) Ralf: Ungefähr diese Menge oder auch so

Peter: Kleider und so Kram kann ich sicherlich noch hier rein tun.

Ralf: About this amount or even so ((holds up some things))

Peter: Clothes und so Kram I can still put in here for sure.

By using the general extender und so Kram (lit. ‘and such junk’), Peter appears to be
treating as trivial the imposition of finding room for Ralf’s things in his suitcase.
In (13), Roger is telling Sara that he’ll talk to his landlord about allowing her to take over
his apartment when he moves out. Reasonably priced apartments are hard to come by, and
there might be some competition for his place.

(13) Roger: I will um intimate to the people who:: rent me this place
Sara: Uh huh
Roger: that there is someone who will y’know=like (.) take it over, and
under my recommendation as y’know—all that crap
Sara: Yeah.

Roger offers to speak with his landlord on Sara’s behalf and he gives her an idea of what
he’ll say. By using the pejorative noun ‘crap’, he downgrades the ‘more’ which might have
been said. It is not clear exactly why Roger downgrades the more that might have been said.
It may be that he views it as routine or predictable, and not worthy of further elaboration, in
much the same way Peter does in (12).

5.2. Disjunctive general extenders

In this section, I will focus on the use of disjunctive general extenders in English and
German (e.g., or something and oder so). In both English and German, a primary function
of disjunctive general extenders appears to be tied to indicating potential alternatives, and
 M. Overstreet / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 1845–1864 1855

hence hedging on what has been said, either with regard to the accuracy of a statement, or
the appropriateness of a suggestion.

5.2.1. Accuracy
On many occasions, the forms or something/oder so (was) seem to be indicating a lack
of commitment to the strict accuracy of what is said. Used in this way, disjunctive general
extenders frequently serve as hedges on Gricean Quality. They tend also to co-occur with
other forms indicating a lack of certainty. In (14), Sara is speculating about the current
status of a couple she knows.

(14) Sara: I think they must ‘ve broke up or something, ‘cause he’s back no//w.
Maya: Yeah. they must’ve.

As she expresses her opinion, Sara marks a lack of commitment to the accuracy of her
assertion with think (not know), the epistemic modal must ‘ve and the general extender or
something.
In (15), Stefan is responding to a question on the whereabouts of a mutual friend. He
knows that she is attending a prestigious university somewhere on the East coast, but he
isn’t sure which one.

(15) Lucie: Hast du noch was von—von Lisa gehört?

Stefan: Nee, nee. Lisa hab’ ich schon lange nicht mehr d’von gehört. Ja::
Lucie: Ist sie noch in—Wo hat sie denn=
Stefan: = Ich glaub’ die ist irgendwie so im Brown oder Duke oder irgendwie
so’ne große Uni ehm an der (.5) Ostküste ja oder so was

Lucie: Have you heard anything more from—from Lisa?

Stefan: Nope, nope. I haven’t heard anything from Lisa in a long time. Yea::h
Lucie: Is she still in—Now where did she=
Stefan: =I think she’s like at Brown or Duke or like some large
University um on the (.5) East coast oder so was

Like the English speaker in (14), the German speaker in (15) uses think (glaub’) as well as
the approximating expression irgendwie and ends with the general extender oder so was to
mark his uncertainty and lack of commitment to the accuracy of his statement.
In both languages, disjunctive general extenders are used to mark an utterance, or part of
an utterance, not only as potentially incomplete, but as an approximation. Some things
typically marked as approximations are reported speech, words, names, dates and amounts.
Example (16) illustrates hedging on reported speech and (17) illustrates approximating an
amount.

(16) Donna: He was saying how I— I’ll say ‘‘He::::::y, nobody::::’s listening to
me::::’’ or something an’ I said // I don’t
Blake: You do: do that.
1856 M. Overstreet / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 1845–1864

(17) Ich treffe sie jetzt zweimal in der Woche oder so.
I meet her twice a week now oder so

Sometimes the non-accurate nature of an expression accompanied by the disjunctive

general extender may represent an intentional exaggeration as a joke that should not be
taken too literally. For example, in (18), Sara is making fun of Roger’s old pickup truck,
which she plans to use when she is staying in his apartment.

(18) Sara: Th-that truck makes the most amazing snorting noises // sometimes
Roger: ha ha ((laughs))
Sara: like when you’re going up a hill,
Roger: Right=
Sara: =it make a noise exactly—it sounds exactly like I dunno like a do::g
or a ho:rse or something like like when it’s when it’s u::h discontent.
((laughs)) It makes the strangest noise—everytime it does I just bust out
laughing.
Roger: ha ha ((laughs))

In (19), Lola (single) and Greg (married) are friends on a long-distance phone call. Lola
has moved to America and is having a bit of trouble with the dating scene. In this excerpt,
Lola is responding to Greg’s question: ‘‘How’s it going romantically und so?’’

(19) Greg: Wie geht’s romantisch und so?

Lola: Ooch (1.0) Hmm. (.5) Ja:::, schwierig.
Greg: Ach, naja, du kannst auf mich warten oder so was ha ha ((lacht))
Lola: Ha ha ((lacht)) Genau das hab’ ich vor. Ha ha ((lacht))

Greg: How’s it going romantically und so?

Lola: Oh (1.0) Hmm (.5) Yea:::h, difficult.
Greg: Ah, well, you can wait for me oder so was ha ha ((laughs))
Lola: Ha ha ((laughs)) That’s exactly what I have planned. Ha ha ((laughs))

Lola responds with Oh, hmm, yeah, difficult. When Greg hears that Lola is not having
much luck with men, he suggests you could wait for me. He marks his suggestion as a joke
with the general extender oder so was. Lola’s laughter demonstrates her interpretation of
his utterance as a joke, and she then responds with her own: That’s exactly what I have
planned.

5.2.2. Negative politeness

In addition to serving as hedges on Gricean Quality, disjunctive general extenders can
also be used in both languages as hedges addressed to politeness concerns. When used to
indicate a lack of commitment to something mentioned and to suggest possible
alternatives, these forms may be seen as strategies of negative politeness. Hedges addressed
to negative politeness concerns are typically found in offers, suggestions, proposals and
invitations, where the speaker risks imposing on the hearer.
 M. Overstreet / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 1845–1864 1857

In (20), Sara’s utterance constitutes a proposal to her friend Roger.

(20) Sara: Okay lemme—lemme—lemme spell it out for you, this is what I:: would
ideally like to do.
Roger: Uh huh=
Sara: =I’d like to move out there an’ take over your apartment
Roger: Right
Sara: and all the stuff that’s in it and just buy it from you, or whatever,
and maybe buy your truck or something. I dunno.

By using the general extenders or whatever and or something, Sara indicates possible
alternatives and expresses a lack of commitment to her plan. As a result, she reduces the
likelihood of imposing on Roger.
In example (21), Hella is responding to Anna’s request that they get together (on the
phone) to work on a project.

(21) Hella: Vielleicht am Wochenende oder so, wenn ich dich anrufe. // Hast
du da—
Anna: Ja, entweder dieses Wochenende oder nächstes Wochenende. Is’ nicht so
dringend.

Hella: Maybe on the weekend oder so, when I call you. // Do you have—
Anna: Yeah, either this weekend or next weekend. It’s not so urgent.

Hella suggests that the coming weekend may be a good time. She marks a lack of
commitment to this possibility with vielleicht (maybe) and the general extender oder
so.

5.2.3. Emphasis
Finally, the forms or what and oder wie/oder was may be used as intensifiers in both
languages, to urge an answer to a question. In example (22), the speaker is an 83-year-old
woman, holding a pot of hot tea over her grandson’s cup and waiting to pour.

(22) Grandmother: Did you want it strong or weak or what?

Grandson: Strong.

In many instances, the emphasis added is clearly not about another choice, but about
giving an answer. This may also be seen in my German database, as illustrated in (23). In
this example, Robert is asking Gisela about her interest in another graduate student at the
university she is attending.

(23) Robert: Hm—weißt du denn über sein Privatleben noch etwas mehr, oder was?
Könnte sein, daß er schon irgendwie gebunden ist oder so.
Gisela: Ne::, der hat keine Freundin.
1858 M. Overstreet / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 1845–1864

Robert: Hm—do you know something more about his private life, oder was?
Could be that he is already like attached oder so.
Gisela: Nope. He doesn’t have a girlfriend.

Robert wonders how much Gisela knows about this guy, or if he’s even available. He uses
the general extender oder was to add emphasis and urge an answer to his question.
In both English and German, when used as intensifiers, general extenders are often
accompanied by markers of phonological prominence, such as loudness, vowel
lengthening and/or rising pitch (see Overstreet, 1999: 96, for the analysis of a particular
instance).

6. Potentially non-shared functions

There are several functions that I have identified in the use of English forms that I have
not found in German. For example, while the forms or what and oder wie/oder was seem to
be used in a similar way in both languages to add emphasis and urge an answer to a
question, there is a common use in English which I have not encountered in German. In an
example such as (24), the speaker employs the general extender as an intensifier while
soliciting agreement with an evaluation being made.

(24) Cathy: Is that the best picture or what?

Jean: Shh! It’s absolutely priceless!

Where it is used to solicit agreement like this, or what is appended to a yes/no question that
contains an evaluation of some kind.
In fact, general extenders seem to be used as intensifiers much more frequently in
English than in German. Forms that appear to function primarily as intensifiers in my
English database include and everything and or anything, as in (25) and (26). Both of these
examples come from an extract in which Crystal is telling Julie about her surprisingly
difficult struggle to get child support from her ex-husband.

(25) Crystal: I just found out he ripped me off an’ everything!

Julie: He di::::d?

(26) Crystal: He doesn’t even know where (.) my new address— where to ch—
send money to me y’kno//w or anything.
Julie: Oh, wo::::w

Julie’s reactions, containing lengthened vowels and rising intonation, reflect an inter-
pretation of Crystal’s comments as surprising.
Another adjunctive general extender which functions as an intensifier in English is and
all, as in (27).
 M. Overstreet / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 1845–1864 1859

(27) Maya: She said—what she told me was she said the dog(.) had heartworms
(.) a::nd=
Sara: =Heartworms can be cured tho//ugh
Maya: Yeah, but—but it requires surgery and all and she didn’t have that
kind of money to shell out I mean // she didn’t have—
Sara: It wasn’t even to that stage.

Maya uses the general extender and all to emphasize that surgery is an extreme and very
expensive measure.
Other than oder wie and oder was, which are found in yes/no questions, I have not
identified any special forms in German which function primarily as intensifiers. However,
one formulaic use of and all (that), but . . . as in (28) seems to be matched by the form und
so, aber . . . as in (29). In both of these examples, the speakers acknowledge what one might
expect to be the case, and emphasize their awareness of it, before presenting a justification
for thinking contrary to those expectations (cf. Overstreet and Yule, 2001, 2002). Example
(28) occurs a bit later in the same interaction as (27). Maya has just expressed strong
disapproval of her friend’s decision to euthanize her dog, which she feels could have been
saved.

(28) Maya: I mean (.) she is the—the caretaker of the dog and all that, but I—I’m
real serious about it. If she gets another pe:t in the next few years I’m gonna
(.) slap her, ‘cause I mean you shouldn’t take on responsibility if you can’t—
Sara: Umhm
Maya: You,—that’s—you just shouldn’t.

The speaker recognizes that her friend has the right to care for her own animals as she sees
fit, but, given recent events, she asserts her intention to slap her friend if she gets another pet
anytime soon.
In (29), Rosa is telling her friend Sissi that Americans are not what they appear to
be.

(29) Rosa: Die deutschen Leute, die Amerika nur besuchen als Touristen, die
schwärmen von den Amerikanern, nuh? Weil die Amerikaner so freundlich
sind und so
Sissi: Ja:
Rosa: Aber wenn die wirklich kennen würden=
Sissi: =Ja=
Rosa: =mehr Schein als Sein
Sissi: Ja, genau.
Rosa: The German people who just visit America as tourists, they rave
about the Americans, huh? Because the Americans are so friendly und so
Sissi: Yea:h
Rosa: Aber if they would really get to know them=
Sissi: =Yeah=
1860 M. Overstreet / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 1845–1864

Rosa: =appearances are deceiving ((literally = ‘more appearance than

existence’))
Sissi: Yeah, exactly.

Rosa emphasizes why German tourists are so taken with Americans, acknowledging their
friendly dispositions. She then goes on to say that despite expectations, Americans are not
what they seem. Note that the cross-linguistic similarity in examples (28) and (29) is
identified in terms of the function of the larger formulaic structure containing the general
extenders and despite the fact that the particular general extenders involved are not literal
translation equivalents.
A German form that does not have a functionally equivalent form in common use in
English is oder was weiß ich (noch alles), which literally means ‘or what (all else) do I
know’. Like the form or whatever in English, this phrase seems to indicate that the content
of an utterance is potentially inaccurate, and that, from the speaker’s perspective, the
accuracy is unimportant. However, oder was weiß ich (noch alles) seems to have an
additional function: to emphasize the existence of many possible alternatives along with an
explicit acknowledgment (was weiß ich/’what do I know’) that the speaker is not in a
position to name them. In (30), the speaker is talking about her parents’ opinions about
whom she should date when she was younger.

(30) Da waren sie nicht so dafür, daß ich mich mit deutschen Buben oder Männern
oder was weiß ich treffe.
They weren’t really in favor of me meeting with German boys or men oder
was weiß ich.

The speaker names the kind of men her parents found unacceptable and indicates potential
alternatives with oder was weiß ich. The use of this general extender seems to signal a
dismissive attitude toward potential alternatives that the speaker may be unable to
name.
A second example of this is found in (31). In this excerpt, a nurse is telling her friend
about the problems she encountered when trying to find a job in Hawai’i.

(31) Das war fürchterlich. Die haben mir ganz schrecklich diskriminiert gegen
jemanden, der nicht hier aufgewachsen war, oder asiatisch aussieht oder
was weiß ich. Jedenfalls das war der falsche Akzent, die falsche Augenfarbe
und die falsche Hautfarbe.
That was terrible. They discriminated against me, as someone who didn’t
grow up here or doesn’t look Asian, oder was weiß ich. In any case, it
was the wrong accent, the wrong eye color and the wrong skin color.

The speaker feels strongly that she was discriminated against, but can only guess at the
reasons. She offers some possibilities and marks a dismissive attitude toward the many
potential, unfathomable reasons with oder was weiß ich.
 M. Overstreet / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 1845–1864 1861

7. Conclusion

I have offered some discussion and examples in an attempt to explore the feasibility of
conducting a comparative analysis of a group of pragmatic expressions called ‘general
extenders’ in English and German. A cross-linguistic study of general extenders, as with
other pragmatic expressions, is complicated by the fact that they are highly formulaic.
Rather than unpacking their meaning, language users seem to treat general extenders as
units which do not require any further processing. As a result, component parts of the forms
being compared are likely to vary (e.g., and stuff/und so) and provide a caveat against strict
translatability. However, certain similarities of internal structure, distribution and co-
occurrence allow us to make comparisons between data extracts containing these forms to
see if relatively similar functions are being performed within the interaction.
This study revealed that German general extenders exhibit close formal similarity to
their English counterparts. In both databases, disjunctive forms far outnumber adjunctive
forms and their functional span is much the same. In both languages, general extenders
can be used to mark assumptions of being similar, informative, accurate and polite. They
can also be used as intensifiers to add emphasis and urge an answer to a question.
Differences were noted in the variability of form (higher in English) and the overall
frequency of usage (also higher in English). One might speculate that these differences
are indicative of a more extensive use of certain types of pragmatic expressions in
contemporary American English spoken interaction, but clearly such speculation would
need to be examined in the context of a much larger database, with greater attention
being paid to the relevant social variables among participating speakers and their
interactive worlds. Within this limited study, certain English expressions (or what, and
everything, or anything) were identified as intensifiers that were being used in a way that
did not seem to have counterparts in the German data. One form (und was weiß ich (noch
alles)) was identified in German that seemed to have no counterpart in the English data.
These observations may simply be a reflection of the limitations of my database.
Alternatively, they may reveal differences between the two languages that were
previously unrecognized.
This investigation was based on an analysis of two relatively small databases which I
collected myself. In analyzing my data, I believe I benefitted tremendously from knowing
the participants, their backgrounds and their relationships, as it gave me insight into what
the words meant for the individuals who produced them. Future studies on both small- and
large-scale corpora might be used to further investigate the range and frequency of these
forms and explore questions such as: Do general extenders indeed occur with higher
frequency and exhibit greater variability of form in English than in German? Are there
additional functions in German which have been overlooked or were not present in my
data? Is there an identifiable gender difference in their usage? What role does prosody play
in determining function?
As we move on to investigate other languages, we will no doubt discover other
intriguing patterns in the form–function relationship of general extenders as well as other
pragmatic expressions. We clearly need further studies, with more fine-grained analysis
and more extensive databases, before we can claim with assurance that we have found a
way to undertake a true cross-linguistic comparison in the area of pragmatic function.
1862 M. Overstreet / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 1845–1864

Acknowledgments

Financial support for this research was provided by the University of Hawai’i’s
Research Council in the form of a Research Relations Grant. I would like to thank the
following colleagues for their helpful comments and support: Niklaus Schweizer, Jennie
Tran, George Yule and Sylvia Zietze.

References

Abraham, Werner (Ed.), 1991. Discourse Particles. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Aijmer, Karin, 2002. English Discourse Particles. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Aijmer, Karin, Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne Marie, in press. The Discourse Particle well and its Equivalents in
Swedish and Dutch.
Andersen, Gisle, 2001. Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Andersen, Gisle, Fretheim, Thorstein (Eds.), 2000. Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude. John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Andvik, Erik, 1992. A Pragmatic Analysis of Norwegian Modal Particles. Publication 13. Summer Institute of
Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.
Ariel, Mira, 1994. Pragmatic operators. In: Asher, R.E. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics, vol. 6.
Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 3250–3253.
Atkinson, John, Heritage, John (Eds.), 1984. Structures of Social Action. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge.
Ball, Catherine, Ariel, Mira, 1978. Or something, etc. In: Ball, C., Matossian, L. (Eds.), Penn Review of
Linguistics. Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 35–45.
Beeching, Kate, 2002. Gender, Politeness and Pragmatic Particles in French. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Betten, Anne, 1976. Ellipsen, Anakoluthe und Parenthesen. Deutsche Sprache 2, 207–230.
Brinton, Laurel J., 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Mouton de
Gruyter, Berlin.
Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen, 1987. Politeness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Channell, Joanna, 1994. Vague Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cicourel, Aaron, 1974. Cognitive Sociology. The Free Press, New York.
Dines, Elizabeth, 1980. Variation in discourse—and stuff like that. Language in Society 1, 13–31.
Erman, Britt, 1987. Pragmatic Expressions in English: A Study of ‘You Know’, ‘You See’ and ‘I Mean’ in Face-
To-Face Conversation. Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm.
Fischer, Kerstin, 2000. From Cognitive Semantics to Lexical Pragmatics: The Functional Polysemy of Discourse
Particles. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Fraser, Bruce, 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6 (2), 167–190.
Fraser, Bruce, 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31, 931–952.
Garfinkel, Harold, 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall, Hillsdale, NJ.
Gülich, Elisabeth, 1970. Makrosyntax der Gliederungssignale im Gesprochenen Französisch. Wilhelm Fink,
München.
Hakulinen, Auli, 1998. The use of Finnish nyt as a discourse particle. In: Jucker, Andreas H., Ziv, Yael (Eds.),
Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 83–96.
Hansen Mosegaard, Maj-Britt, 1998. The Function of Discourse Particles: A Study With Special Reference to
Spoken Standard French. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Hasund, I. Kristine, 2001. Markers of epistemic stance: a contrastive study of the pragmatic particles like in
English and liksom in Norwegian. In: Vater, Heinz, Letnes, O. (Eds.), Modalität und Mehr. Wissenschaftlicher
Verlag Trier, Trier, pp. 129–140.
Holly, Werner, 1979. Imagearbeit in Gesprächen. Niemeyer, Tübingen.
 M. Overstreet / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 1845–1864 1863

Holmes, Janet, 1988. Of course: a pragmatic particle in New Zealand women’s and men’s speech. Australian
Journal of Linguistics 8 (1), 49–74.
Husserl, Edmund, 1929/1977. Formale und Tranzendentale Logik (Bände I & II). Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.
Jefferson, Gail, 1990. List construction as a task and resource. In: Psathas, G. (Ed.), Interaction Competence.
University Press of America, Lanham, ML, pp. 63–72.
Jucker, Andreas H., Ziv, Yael (Eds.), 1998. Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. John Benjamins,
Amsterdam.
König, Ekkehard, Requardt, S., 1991. A relevance-theoretical approach to the analysis of modal particles in
German. Multilingua 10, 63–77.
Kroon, Caroline, 1995. Discourse Particles in Latin: A Study of Nam, Enim, Autem, Vero and At. J.C. Bieben,
Amsterdam.
Lerner, Gene, 1994. Responsive list construction. Language and Social Psychology 13, 20–33.
Luke, Kang Kwong, 1990. Utterance Particles in Cantonese Conversation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Mashler, Yael, 1998. Rootsé loshmoa kéta? ‘Wanna hear something weird/funny?’: segmenting Israeli Hebrew
talk-in-interaction. In: Jucker, A.H., Ziv, Y. (Eds.), Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. John
Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, pp. 13–59.
Onodera, Noriko, 1995. Diachronic analysis of Japanese discourse markers. In: Jucker, A. (Ed.), Historical
Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 393–437.
Östman, Jan-Ola, 1981. You Know: A Discourse Functional Approach. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Overstreet, Maryann, 1999. Whales, Candlelight and Stuff Like That: General Extenders in English Discourse.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Overstreet, Maryann, Tran, Jennie, Zietze, Sylvia, in press. Die Vagheit der Sprache und so.
Overstreet, Maryann, Yule, George, 1997. Locally contingent categorization in discourse. Discourse Processes 23,
83–97.
Overstreet, Maryann, Yule, George, 2001. Formulaic disclaimers. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 45–60.
Overstreet, Maryann, Yule, George, 2002. The metapragmatics of and everything. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 785–
794.
Park, Yong-Yae, 1998. A discourse analysis of contrastive connectives in English, Korean and Japanese
conversation: with special reference to dispreferred responses. In: Jucker, A.H., Ziv, Y. (Eds.), Discourse
Markers: Descriptions and Theory. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 277–300.
Rommetveit, Ragnar, 1974. On Message Structure. Wiley, London.
Schegloff, Emmanuel, 1992. Repair after next turn: the last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in
conversation. American Journal of Sociology 97, 1295–1345.
Schiffrin, Deborah, 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Schourup, Lawrence, 1985. Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation. New York, Garland.
Schourup, Lawrence, 1999. Discourse markers: tutorial overview. Lingua 107, 227–265.
Schütz, Alfred, 1932/1967. The Phenomenology of the Social World. Northwestern University Press, Evanston,
Illinois (G. Walsh, F. Lehnert, Trans.).
Schwitalla, Johannes, 1997. Gesprochenes Deutsch. Erich Schmidt, Berlin.
Shloush, Shelley, 1998. A unified account of Hebrew bekicur ‘in short’: relevance theory and discourse structure
considerations. In: Jucker, A.H., Ziv, Y. (Eds.), Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. John Benjamins,
Amsterdam, pp. 61–82.
Stenström, Anna-Brita, Andersen, Gisle, Hasund, I. Kristine, 2002. Trends in Teenage Talk. John Benjamins,
Amsterdam.
Suzuki, Satoko, 1998. Pejorative connotation: a case of Japanese. In: Jucker, A.H., Ziv, Y. (Eds.), Discourse
Markers: Descriptions and Theory. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 261–276.
Svartvik, Jan, Quirk, Randolf, 1980. A Corpus of English Conversation. Gleerup, Lund.
Takahara, Paul, 1998. Pragmatic functions of the discourse marker anyway and its corresponding contrastive
Japanese discourse markers. In: Jucker, A.H., Ziv, Y. (Eds.), Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory.
John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 327–351.
Ward, Gregory, Birner, Betty, 1993. The semantics and pragmatics of and everything. Journal of Pragmatics 19,
205–214.
1864 M. Overstreet / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 1845–1864

Watts, Richard J., 1988. A relevance-theoretic approach to commentary pragmatic markers: the case of actually,
really and basically. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38 (1–4), 235–260.
Weydt, Harald, 1987. Partikel-Bibliographie: Internationale Sprachenforschung zu Partikeln und Interjektionen. P.
Lang, Frankfurt.
Willkop, Eva Maria, 1988. Gliederungspartikeln im Dialog. Iudicium, München.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Macmillan, New York (G.E.M. Anscombe, Trans.).

Maryann Overstreet is an associate professor of German at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa. She holds an MA
in European languages and literature (1989) and a PhD in linguistics (1995). Her specializations include:
pragmatics, discourse analysis, second language teaching/learning, and psycho-sociolinguistic perspectives on
categorization. Her current research interests include: pragmatics and teaching/learning German as a foreign
language.