Conversely, it is possible to have texts which make perfect sense though they lack overt links between the sentences. The following text gives no difficulties to people who know something about football:
The terms I shall propose for a discussion of interprctability are similarly three: intelligibility, comprehensibility, and interpretability proper. A piece of text is intelligible to those who can recognize in it phonological, lexical and syntactic structures. Intelligibility thus presupposes pattern recognition, the correct perccpti.on of structures. A text is comprehensible to those who can assign to it a definite meaning, a semantic structure. And a text is interpretable to those who can build around that text a scenario, a text world, a set of states of affairs, in which that text makes sense. Thus to English hearers a sequence such as toffits broyse is intelligible: they can discern its phonemes and a syntactic structure where toffits is a plural of toffit, and used generically to judge by the absence of the article, and a subject; and broyse the appropriate plural of a verb. Unlike 'Jabberwocky', however, this sequence is at least to myself too short and the words not sufficiently suggestive to evoke a proper meaning, beyond vague guesses that toffits are animate, and perhaps small and even furry (would you agree,
When I suggested that a text is interpretable to those who can, under the prevailing circumstances, build around it a text world - or scenario, if you prefer the term - in which that text makes sense, I used several phrases that need comment and further specification. These are global problems, and here I can only touch upon them briefly.