_He goes to the station_ _Does he go to the station?_ _He comes here_ _Does he come here?_ etc. etc.
The student listens, and subsequently performs the same series. On other occasions each of the ten sentences may be converted into forms such as:
_He'll go to the station_, etc. _He wants to go to the station_, etc. _He's going to the station_, etc. _He didn't go to the station_, etc. _He went to the station_, etc. _He's gone to the station_, etc. _It's impossible for him to go to the station_, etc. _He always goes to the station_, etc.
In the case of conversion the difference between memorized and constructed matter is not so marked as in the two synthetic operations, nor is the yield of constructed matter so great. Indeed, in extreme cases, the form into which the original sentence is to be converted will have to be learnt integrally, and so becomes in itself memorized matter. On the other hand, some forms of this type of work are practically identical with exercises based on ergonic construction, and for these two reasons it has been held that conversion is not a distinct process for forming constructed matter, but merely a modified form of ergonic work. Whether this view is justified or not is a matter more of academic than of practical interest to the language-teacher.
These then appear to be the only three processes known by which memorized matter can be developed and expanded into original composition. What we have called grammatical construction is the classical and almost universal method. What we have called ergonic construction is embodied more or less unsystematically in a number of language-courses and the more enlightened books of instruction. Conversion is also practised, but still in a sporadic and desultory fashion.
Now, some thirty years ago the reform movement started. In several different countries bands of zealous pioneers took up arms against the then prevailing system and sought to put an end to it. The reform prospered. The reformers have carried all before them, and the daring innovators of twenty or thirty years ago now enjoy the prestige that their efforts have earned for them.
What was the nature of this reform? What abuses has it swept away? And for what innovations have we to thank it? It would appear, on analysis, to have had a threefold object: