The writer questions two tendencies found in many language‐teaching programmes today and relates them to observed deficiencies in modern language‐teaching methods: 1) emphasizing the surface elements of language to the neglect of its “deep structure” or meaning; 2) treating the graphic processes of reading and writing as inherently dependent on the corresponding audial ones, independent of meaning. (“Meaning” is explained not as a semantic reference eventually attached to already‐formed sound sequences, but as the relating of spoken or written utterances to one's whole cognitive structure or experience.) The first tendency accounts for the failure of contrastive analysis and avoidance of native‐language use to handle the so‐called “interference” problem. The second retards the assimilation of all skills by replacing the student's normal meaning‐oriented learning mechanism by a system based on the artificial primacy of one form of surface structure over the other. As the writer admits, the article serves only to suggest some new directions for exploration. The question of specific application to language‐teaching methods is left