In an attempt to clarify the nature of the unintelligibility of analysands' communications during analysis, the author discusses the problem from the viewpoints of linguistics, cognitive activities, and historical reconstructions. He rejects Lacan's postulate that neurosis is caused by the unintelligibility arising from the use of abstract language. He emphasizes, rather, that the development of the historical narrative within the analytic transference provides insights into the process of moving from unintelligibility to intelligibility.