Chakavian
Chakavian or Čakavian is a South Slavic supradialect or language spoken by Croats along the Adriatic coast, in the historical regions of Dalmatia, Istria, Croatian Littoral and parts of coastal and southern Central Croatia, as well as by the Burgenland Croats as Burgenland Croatian in southeastern Austria, northwestern Hungary and southwestern Slovakia as well as few municipalities in southern Slovenia on the border with Croatia.
Chakavian represents the basis for early literary standards in Croatia, and until the modern age was simply known and understood, along with the Kajkavian and Shtokavian idioms in Croatia, as the Croatian language. Legal and liturgical to literary texts until the 16th century, including literary work by "the father of Croatian literature" Marko Marulić and the first Croatian dictionary authored by Faust Vrančić, among others, are mostly Chakavian in their form. The term Chakavian and definition of the dialect date from the mid-19th century.
Classification
Historically, the classification of Chakavian has been a subject of much debate regarding both the question of how should it be named and whether it ought to be considered a dialect or a language, as well as the question of what its relation is to neighboring vernaculars.Autonyms used throughout history by various Chakavian writers have been straightforward, ranging from mainly Croatian to Slavic and Illyrian, but also other idioms, Kajkavian and Shtokavian, throughout history were named and understood as Croatian language. Chakavian compared to others is one of the oldest written South Slavic varieties that had made a visible appearance in legal documents—as early as 1275 and 1288, where the predominantly vernacular Chakavian is recorded, mixed with elements of Church Slavic. However, in both of them it is named as "Croatian language". The term Chakavian is first recorded in 1728 in the Ardelio Della Bella's Dizionario italiano-latino-illirico and in the beginning of the 19th century in Joakim Stulić's Lexicon latino–italico–illyricum, while adjective in Antun Mažuranić's analysis of Vinodol codex. No Croatian literary writer used words "čakavac" and "čakavski" to describe their, Croatian, language until the late 19th century, and it is mostly since the 20th century that these terms have been popularized through the education system. Croatian literary authors of what would later be known as Chakavian and Shtokavian idioms, from different parts of Dalmatia and Ragusa, in corresponding letters wrote that they belonged to the same Croatian nation, and spoke the same language which they named as Croatian or Slavic. With its name and dialectological or language form, it is mainly a creation advanced by linguists. Today, the term Chakavian is accepted by its speakers and linguists in Croatia, but usually for practical reasons.
In its almost thousand years, Chakavian has undergone many phonetic, morphological, and syntactical changes -- chiefly in the turbulent mainlands, but less in isolated islands. The problem with classifying Chakavian within Western South Slavic stems in part from there being no unanimous opinion on the set of traits a dialect has to possess to be classified as Chakavian. Its sub-dialects have various differences but also closeness to neighboring Shtokavian and Kajkavian speeches, and all three dialects are part of a dialect continuum, while their diversification into dialects and languages is mostly political, ethnic and symbolic. From a linguistic point of view, national and other names based on interrogatory pronouns are practical, but also inaccurate as dialect/language definitions; linguists would more precisely replace these with complex isoglosses in the dialect continuum.
Dialectologists and Slavists maintain that when the separation of Western South Slavic speeches happened, they separated into five divergent groups, more specifically two, one Slovene and second Serbo-Croatian with four divergent groups - Kajkavian, Chakavian, Western Shtokavian and Eastern Shtokavian. The latter group can be additionally divided into first and second. According to isoglosses, and presumed end of existence of the Southwestern Slavic around the 8th-9th century, the formation of the assumed Proto-Chakavian linguistic and territorial unit would be around the 9th-10th century, while of the Chakavian dialect known today between the 12th-16th century.
Very few, trivial, isoglosses exist that separate all Chakavian speeches from all other Western South Slavic dialects nor do exist common isoglosses to all Chakavian sub-dialects from which would be possible a deduction of a "Proto-Chakavian" dialect or language. Ranko Matasović concludes as well that "the Chakavian dialect was never entirely unique, i.e. it is not possible to find common linguistic innovations that would encompass all Chakavian speeches", "while common-Shokavian and common-Kaikavian innovations do exist". There exist significant differences between Northern and all other Chakavian sub-dialects, as Northern Chakavian has characteristics common with Slovene and Kajkavian while Southern Chakavian with Western Shtokavian, but also Northern Chakavian has with Shtokavian, and both Northern and Southern Chakavian have with the Kajkavian dialect. Many linguists, including Aleksandar Belić, Stjepan Ivšić, Zvonimir Junković, Pavle Ivić, Dalibor Brozović among others, in their comparative analysis concluded that Chakavian is closely related to Western Shtokavian. Ivić for example concluded that the Chakavian dialect is genetically much closer to Shtokavian than Kajkavian, and initially argued that "Historically speaking, Chakavian is to a considerable extent a peripheral zone of Shtokavian which many respects lagged behind the development of the core, and which parts developed locally limited innovations ". Brozović argued four accentological cores from which dialects emerged, one in which were grouped few Chakavian speeches, while the majority of Chakavian speeches were grouped with Western Shtokavian dialect and part of Southern-Slavonian dialect. Today, Chakavian is mostly considered as a separate and unique linguistic system which can be further divided.
According to Mate Kapović, some Croatian linguists have a "Chakavian nationalist" desire to prove various speeches as Chakavian which, according to him, is scientifically unsustainable. Josip Silić, for example, argued that Chakavian is not a dialect of Croatian language but a one of three Croatian linguistic systems, a language on its own but without standard, which was met with criticism. At the suggestion of American linguist Kirk Miller in 2019, the Chakavian dialect was recognized by SIL International as a living language with its own ISO 639-3 code – ckm in 2020. The recognition was mostly met with silence and ignorance in Croatia and by Croatian linguists and scientists, partly because it does not affect dialect status of Chakavian nor does it have relevancy in international and national linguistic science. Academic and currently leading expert on Chakavian, Silvana Vranić, noted that Chakavian idiom is a dialect group of sub-dialects of Croatian language of Western South-Slavic from which cannot be removed and considered a separate language. She criticized Miller's documentation as it was based on two irrelevant and unscientific sources with "scientific falsehood". Joško Božanić noted the paradox of SIL International, as the institute already registered in 2008 the Croatian language as a South Slavic language with three dialects. He considers that the re-valorization of Chakavian idiom should not come from a foreign country, and Croatian initiatives possibly need to aim listing it on UNESCO's Red Book list on endangered languages in Europe. Josip Bratulić and Mira Menac-Mihalić consider that such recognition won't achieve anything, including its preservation, as Chakavian won't be spoken or studied more than it was until now. openly criticized it as an example of ignorance and misunderstanding of the Croatian language as well as history, definition and characteristics of the so-called Chakavian dialect. Vidović relates it to the modern Croatian phenomenon of "linguistic separatism" which argues for finding a solution for preserving various Chakavian, Kajkavian and Shtokavian idioms from influence of Croatian standard language, although in Croatia various efforts are already made for their preservation and popularization, and the comparatively much longer influence of the Italian language on Chakavian is ignored. Croatian political scientist Viktor Matić considers that the Croatian "linguistic separatism" has antagonism against Croatian standard language but it is also result of previous fetishising of Croatian standard language and Serbo-Croatian language.