Oznacevalce odprte propozicije oznacimo za pragmaticne izraze. Od podobnih izrazov so jim morda najblizji diskurzni oznacevalci, to so izrazi kot ja, mhm, a ne, no, dobro, glejte ipd. Zlasti z (a) ne so oznacevalci odprte propozicije povezani tudi prek pogostega sopojavljanja - tip tuki so pa same neke hobotnice in tako naprej a ne (prim. raziskavo pichLer, Stephen LeVey 2010 na primeru anglescine). Nekateri avtorji jih celo oznacijo kot vrsto diskurznih oznacevalcev (npr. overstreet 2005), ces da se prav tako pojavljajo zunaj sintakticne strukture stavka ali so le ohlapno povezani z njo, drugi nasprotno argumentirajo, da so vendarle po vrsti lastnosti (npr. dokaj homogena struktura izrazov, dokaj stalno mesto v izjavi, nanasanje na predhodni propozicijski element itd.) razlicni od tipicnih diskurznih oznacevalcev (npr. martineZ 2011). Sami smo mnenja, da je treba razlicne pragmaticne izraze pred njihovo morebitno klasifikacijo oz. umestitvijo v jezikovni sistem se precej raziskovati. Poleg tipicnih diskurznih oznacevalcev in oznacevalcev odprte propozicije namrec najdemo v govoru se razne ekspresivne izraze (zal, super, fino, a res, joj, odlicno ...), izraze povzemanja (skratka, se pravi, tako da ...), izraze, ki napovedujejo premor (samo malo, cakajte, samo trenutek, samo da vidim ...), izraze nastevanja (prvo kot prvo ...), izraze rekanja (bi rekel, moram reci, saj pravim ...) in se kaksne druge (v bistvu, kaj jaz vem, kaj (pa) vem, ne vem, itak ...). Poleg tega ne smemo prezreti pisnega diskurza, kjer se prav tako pojavljajo nekateri sorodni izrazi, ceprav ne nujno isti in ne nujno v istih vlogah (prim. razprave o metadiskurzu, v slovenskem prostoru npr. pisansKi peterLin 2011). Pragmaticni izrazi so pozornost raziskovalcev pritegnili sele zadnja desetletja, ko so govorni korpusi omogocili boljsi vpogled v govorjeni diskurz. Tudi vedno nove in nove razprave na to temo kazejo, da tema se ni izcrpana. Med prve daljse razprave o oznacevalcih odprte propozicije lahko stejemo clanek dinesoVe (1980) o nekaterih tovrstnih izrazih v govorjenem diskurzu avstralske anglescine z vidika variacijske analize. dubois (1992) analizira socio-demografske vplive na njihovo rabo in njihovo sestavo v montrealski francoscini. overstreetova (1999) v obsirni razpravi na ameriski anglescini predstavi oznacevalce odprte propozicije znotraj funkcijskojezikoslovne delitve na besedilno in medosebno funkcijo jezika ter poudari njihovo medosebno vlogo v diskurzu, ki je po njenem mnenju prvotna. aiJmerJeVa (2002) izhaja iz korpusnega pristopa in opisuje oznacevalce odprte propozicije v angleski anglescini s stalisca oblike, vloge, prozodije in situacij, v katerih so rabljeni. overstreetova (2005) primerja rabo oznacevalcev odprte propozicije v anglescini in nemscini. cheshire (2007) analizira njihovo rabo glede na razlicne oblike, slovnicne procese in multifunkcionalnost v govoru adolescentov v treh razlicnih angleskih mestih. taGLiamonte, denis (2010) preucujeta rabo teh izrazov v anglescini, govorjeni v Torontu, in analizirata foneticno redukcijo, dekategorizacijo, semanticne spremembe in pragmaticne premike. martineZ (2011) analizira njihovo rabo v govoru britanskih najstnikov in odraslih, pri cemer primerja pogostost rabe, slovnicne procese in pragmaticne vloge. terrascHKe (2010) primerja rabo izraza or so glede na pogostost in pragmaticne vloge pri maternih govorcih anglescine v Novi Zelandiji in tujih govorcih anglescine. pichLer, LeVey (2010) analizirata sopojavljanje oznacevalcev odprte propozicije z drugimi diskurznimi pojavi (npr. z izrazi, kot sta a ne, a veste itd.) v govoru severovzhodnega predela Anglije glede na razlicne starostne skupine govorcev. fernandeZ, yuLdasheV (2011) analizirata rabo oznacevalcev odprte propozicije v neposrednih elektronskih sporocilih, primerjaje rabo pri maternih in tujih govorcih anglescine. In this paper we investigate a group of markers in spoken interaction in Slovene, known by the term "general extenders". Expressions such as in tako naprej 'and so on', pa to 'and such', pa tako 'and like that', pa vse 'and all', ali pa kaj takega 'or something like that', ali nekaj takega 'or something like that', fall into this category. They are commonly divided into two groups: those beginning with in or colloquial pa, called "adjunctive", and those beginning with ali, called "disjunctive". We use the Slovene reference speech corpus GOS for the analysis. Corpus GOS includes about 1 mio. transcribed words of speech in everyday situations (private and official) as well as school lessons, lectures, and public media (TV and radio) discourse. We find a total of 50 different expressions that can function as general extenders in speech, however, only 12 of them are used more than 12 times, and 10 of them are used merely once. The most common five are: in tako naprej (225 uses), pa to (318 uses), pa vse (44 uses), pa tako (79 uses), ali pa kaj takega (38 uses). First, we compare their usage in different discourse settings within the GOS corpus. The results show that there is a greater variety and frequency of general extenders in non-public and informal settings than in the public and formal settings; that disjunctive general extenders are similarly frequent in all non-public settings, whilst adjunctive general extenders are more frequent in private than in official non-public settings; and that there are important differences in the usage of particular general extenders. Then we examine the most frequent Slovene general extender, in tako naprej, using the sociocognitive approach, based on the theory of mental models by Van diJK and Kintsch (1983). We specify in tako naprej as a strategic device that a speaker uses when s/he wants to leave the previous element of the proposition underspecified, exemplified, or approximated. The elements of control structure that guide its usage are, for example: a speaker does not want to explain the details, a speaker thinks the details are not important or interesting, a speaker wants to indicate that the thing/process is repeating, etc. General extenders refer to the previous element of the proposition which can be of various length: single previous word, word phrase, more words/phrases, single previous sentence or several sentences. From the interactional level point of view, we find that general extenders address the listener and stimulate him/her to use his/ her own knowledge and actively cooperate, to put more effort into interpretation, to guess what the speaker has in mind. However, also some more specific interactional goals are identified, such as: a speaker lets the listener know that s/he does not want to explain the details, a speaker lets the listener know that s/he is unsure whether s/ he has exhaustively represented the propositional element, a speaker lets the listener know thats/he has some problems in production, etc.