DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN CLITICS AND AFFIXES IN DEGEMA, NIGERIA

Abstract

The distinction between the affi x and the clitic is sometimes not easy to make, as clitics also have some characteristics of affi xes. This paper demonstrates that the clitic in Degema is distinct from the affi x despite many features they have in common. Some of the criteria that are held to apply cross-linguistically do not absolutely distinguish the clitic from the affi x in Degema. The paper provides background information as regards the elements that separate into clitics and affi xes in Degema, features that are common to both clitics and affi xes, and some of the features that are considered as distinguishing clitics from affi xes. The defi nitions of the Degema clitic and affi x, respectively, are proposed. Two autonomous communities on the Degema Island speak Degema in the Degema Local Government Area of Rivers State of Nigeria. These communi- ties are Usokun-Degema and Degema Town. Each of these communities speaks a variety of Degema that is highly mutually intelligible with the other. The varieties spoken are Usokun and Degema Town (Atala), corresponding to the names of the communities. The order of the names of these communities or dialects is arbitrary and does not suggest the relative importance of either of the communities or the dialects. This paper is based on the Usokun variety. The fi rst reference to some of the elements separated into affi xes and clit- ics in Degema is Thomas (1966). Thomas's work on Degema, sketchy as it is, serves as a stepping-stone for a detailed inquiry into the phenomena of clitici- zation and affi xation in Degema. Although she made no reference to clitics or rather lumped together what I call clitics with affi xes in her 1966 work, her recognition of these elements has opened up a new area of research in the his- tory of Degema linguistics. On page 190 of her work, she provides a verb chart in which she makes a distinction between prefi xes, roots, and suffi xes. She divides the suffi xes into 'derivational' and 'infl ectional'. The chart provided the basis for a reanalysis of her prefi xes and suffi xes. The infl ectional suffi xes were reanalyzed as enclit- ics (cf. Kari, 1995c), and the prefi xes as proclitics (cf. Kari, 1997). The deriva- tional suffi xes, or what I call 'verbal extensions', became the only true suffi xes