While it may often be relatively difficult to overcome the cleavage between separate but coterritorial speech communities, it is not impossible to do so. The forced conversion of various Jewish and Christian communities during certain periods of Islamic rule, the urban-industrial assimilation of hitherto rural or small town immigrants and their children in the United States (Nahirny and Fishman 1965. Fishman 1965a. 1965e. 1966c), the very similar assimilation of tribal populations moving to Wolof-speaking Dakar (Tabouret-Kelley 1968), the Helienization and Roman¬ization of many "barbarian" elites in ancient Rome and Alexandria, the convergence between illiterate speakers of Marathi and Kannada in India (Gumperz 1967) -these are all examples of the fusing into one of populations that originally functioned as largely separate though coterritorial speech communities. Conversely, the mutual alienation of popula-tions that originally considered themselves to be united can create fargoing linguistic differences between them where none, or few, existed previously. In general, the more fargoing the linguistic differences between any two co¬territorial populations (i.e., the more the differences are basically grammatical-syntactic and morphological-rather than primarily phonological or lexical), the more their linguistic repertoires are compartmentalized from each other so as to reveal littlee if any interference, and the more they reveal functionally different verbal repertoires in terms of the sociolinguistic parameters reviewed in Section 4, above-then the greater the interactional and sociocultural gap between the speech communities involved.
Geertz's data clearly indicate that social-class differences exit (or existed at the time his field work was done) in Javanese verbal behavior. In addition, however, the data also indicate that contextual-situational variation also exists in `Javanese verbal behavior. They very fact that both of these types of variation regularly co-occur is an indication that
although stratificational differences involved are rigid and deep nevertheless the strata constitute a single integrated speech community with shared normative expectations and regulations vis-a-vis intrastrata and interstrata communication