(1) He goes to the station.
(2) He comes here.
(3) He takes it.
(4) He waits for it.
(5) He stays there.
(6) He writes a letter.
(7) He reads a book.
(8) He speaks French.
(9) He gets up.
(10) He’s here.[8]
He then listens to the teacher, who says:
| He goes to the station | He doesn’t go to the station. |
| He comes here | He doesn’t come here. |
| etc. | etc. |
and after one or more repetitions performs the conversion himself in the same way, with or without prompting by the teacher or the book.
The teacher will then change the sentences in some other manner, for instance:
| 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.