* Frank B. Brooks, Florida State University One of the most widely advertised and desired language socialization (381). goals of l a ing Spanish is the ability to speak The purpose of this paper is to (1) discuss the language f r real purposes b yond the classbriefly the th ore cal and empirical literat re r om setting. The co versation course, he regarding negoti tion of mean ng as a f re, ccupies an important place within the construct, (2) presen nd iscuss selecte findraditi nal unde graduate Sp nish l guag curing from a l ngitudin study an intact Span icu um. In th s cours l m rs ar f n lly proish conversation course th colleg lev l rela v d d ppor uni ies to speak the l n e o t n tive to l arne -leamer conver ation and th s bly u v ilable n th low r-level course . negotiatio of meaning, and (3) mak om In ed, ped cal iter ur off rs n m r com ndat ons for the Span h co vers ion ous u gestio fo oviding class oom n cou s . guage leamers opportunities to speak Spanish withi m i l c n xt . Y t, e pite the Th Neg at f M ni g n m rous dago cal s gge i s ha ab nd in the literature, very little is known about how There is now considerable evidence to sugstudents in traditional language learning settings gest that, if language leamers are to be successactually speakduringteachendesignedandimpleful, especially at learning to participate in mented speaking opportunities. Moreover, little conversations with native speakers of Spanish, is known about the relationship between the opportunities for meaningful social interaction discourse structures actually used by language between and among the users of the second leamers and the discourse structures of Spanish language arenecessary. Gass and Varonis (1985), (Brooks, 1989,1990; Kinginger, 1989; Kinginger forexample, argue that, when inputis negotiated, & Savignon, in press). the leamers' conversation can proceed with a The availability of spontaneous verbal interminimum amount of confusion. (See also Long action between and among language leamers, and Porter 1985; Pica 1987; Varonis and Gass however, has been identified as an extremely 1986.) Furthermore, the input will be made more important factor in second language acquisition meaningful to the leamers because of their own (Long & Porter, 1985; Pica, 1987; Schwanz, personal involvement in the negotiation process. 1980; Varonis & Gass, 1986). Indeed, a number According to Knashen (1987), the negotiation of theoretical arguments abound regarding the process is a means for the leamer to obtain importance of having language leamers speak comprehensible input, that is, input modified in face to face with one another during various such a way that the language in which the input kinds of speaking tasks. (See, for example, Duff, is heard becomes tailored more to the level of 1986; Kinginger, 1989; Porter, 1986; Rulon & comprehensibility that the learner can manage. McCreary, 1986.) Theories of second language The involvement, then, is obtained as a result of acquisition, forexample, assert that the negotiatwo-way communication in that each possesses tion of meaning, that is, the way in which something (i.e., information) the other wants or speakers work together through the target lanneeds. In this kind of an arrangement, each guage to repair communications during face to panicipant has the right to request clarification of face conversation is the sine qua non of language something said, for confirmation of information learning (Schwanz, 1980). Schegloff, Jefferheard, or for repetition of something said and son, and Sacks (1977) even assert that this kind perhaps not fully understood. As Pica (1987) of repair work is a very necessary pan of natural argues: c versation, and can even serve as a vehicle of Underlying the need for mutual understanding and the op-