To learn a language is to learn the activities, practices, actions and reactions within characteristic contexts in which the rule governed use of words are integrated (Hacker, 2003). It is to do things with words such as asking, telling, naming, directing, promising, describing, explaining, cajoling, negotiating, refuting, refusing, agreeing, correcting, teasing, tattling, inviting, etc. To learn a language is to learn to manipulate symbols (words, gesture) according to the conventions for their use; to learn their meaning. Having a language grants many benefits: to be able to reason, deliberate, to talk about our pasts and futures, hopes, wishes, disappointments and joys, etc. It only makes sense that the goals within a language-based intervention program be those things we do in language. Our job is simply to clarify the ways terms are used and how they can be taught. This is what informs an 'ordinary language' approach to intervention.

Teaching language within an Early Intensive Behavior Intervention framework employs behavioral tools, procedures, strategies and techniques and, when applied expertly and appropriately leads to effective, comprehensive and efficient learning. The best long term outcome studies demonstrate this. No Applied Verbal Behavior (AVB) required. In fact, no long term studies comparing AVB to better known studies have been done. Mastery of a language necessarily occurs outside the constraints of this trendy (e.i., AVB) conceptual approach which insist on the accumulation of tacts, mands, intraverbals, etc
 
What we know about language is not found in theories
The conceptual system for teaching children a language, whether children with autism or not, is not found in theories but rather, we are socialized into a certain way of being, that we learn how to do such things as making claims, raising questions, conducting arguments, sensing disagreements, recognizing agreements, and so on (Shotter, 1984).  Our mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts and uncles etc. showed us, guided us in learning to do and recognize these kinds of things...not to tact, mand or intra-verbal. They didn't ask us how many intraverbals we engaged in during school but whether we told or asked our teacher something, whether we lied to Johnny, promised Suzy, reminded Billy or invited Harry. They taught us the words that express the concepts that live under words; "ball", 'car", "when", "why", "thinking", "wishing", "hoping" etc. They taught use how to use them; they taught us their meanings. 

Our job as interventionists is similar. We guide by first providing training in the rudimentary constituents of a language. Then we must contrive situations and circumstances and introduce activities which allow for pointed practice and guidance around particular circumstances in which appropriate linguistic forms and accompanying words can be used. As a result, children are introduced to and subsequently learn to recognize patterns of activity in which it is appropriate to use particular linguistic forms and words. It must be stressed early in this discussion, the kinds of things we might say across circumstances are not "fixed",  not specified not 'determined' or 'controlled', as behavioral theory/ philosophy insists.

Learning a language is to learn moves in a game or more accurately many kinds of language games. It is much like learning to play chess.  When learning to play chess, first we learn the names of the pieces (Simply knowing the names of things e.g. 'tacting' is to do nothing in a chess game or in language). Then one learns the rules for how pieces move. Then players learn to recognize rudimentary patterns of activity and basic moves in response, and later to recognize more complex patterns and more sophisticated technique. (For more on this, readers are encouraged to read about a Wittgensteinian approach to language by first reading anything by Baker and Hacker, PMS Hacker or Anthony Kenny.) The pieces in chess are used as tools and operate according to rules for their use...and they are used for different purposes. A pawn may block, take other pieces, be sacrificed etc. Technique is employed in the game as need arises. Mastery of technique with pawns, will help win or lose a game. Similarly, words and sentences can used to different effect, using different techniques for different effects. Moves in chess and language are done with purpose. There is a point in moving one way or another. Not so in a verbal behavior scheme.

The premise of VB has nothing to do with learning a language
Verbal behavior is concerned with behavior. Language is not behavior. We don't language. Language does not have frequency, duration or intensity. Behavior does. Speaking is behavior. But, that which is said or written is not behavior. When I say, "I promise to give you the car". The utterance is behavior. It is 'clockable'. But the promise itself, my promise to give a car, exists beyond the utterance lives in language...not behavior

Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior is not an analysis of language...but of behavior; the behavior of speakers.  It is a theory which attempts to account for the controlling variables which result in the behavior of uttering sounds in the presence of other sounds or things. The 'response' and its controlling antecedent stimuli and reinforcing events are under investigation. The 'response' is the goal in applied verbal behavior, i.e, to accumulate them. To acquire operant units (the controlling antecedent and the response); Not to act in any way other than to utter responses; not to do things with words (plead, promise, accuse, compliment etc.) 

 Formats for teaching in a verbal behavior approach
One popular format for teaching within a verbal behavior paradigm is intra-verbal webbing. Here is an example:

• Teacher: "What is something you bounce?"Child: "You bounce a ball" 

• Teacher: "What is something you kick?"Child: "You kick a ball" 

• Teacher: "What is something that is round?"Child: "A ball is round" 

These are the kinds of operant units taught in 'intraverbal webbing'. The VB units relate to the response "ball"; uttering "ball" is the targeted response in the presence of the verbal antecedent.  But this effort fails to consider what it takes to get children to learn what words mean (how they are used).  Word meaning, the appropriate use of words is central to learning a language. In the cases above, the point of language learning is lost. Language learning needs to also address the meaning of the other words, 'kick', 'round', 'bounce', 'you', 'what' that are used in the utterances above. What would it take and what needs to be considered if children are to learn the meaning of all of these words, i.e., to use and respond to words appropriately according to the rules for their use. These questions are not part of the calculus in a Verbal Behavior approach.
 

In VB, the words "bounce", "kick", "round", "you", etc. are relegated to the static realm of antecedent stimuli. Word meaning itself in VB has a rather bizarre nature. Moore, (2002) states that, in behavior analytic terms, word meaning for the 'listener',"is to be found to the extent to which an utterance enters into contingencies affecting the listener’s behavior. The most common way for the utterance to affect the listener’s behavior is to function as a discriminitive stimulus".  This means that the meaning of the word "ball" is the question, "Tell me something round". This also means that meaning of the word sun, tire, face, globe, bubble, coin, ferris wheel is "something that is round? Does this then mean a football and rugby ball are not balls? This is just absurd and misguided and has nothing to do with what we do when learning a language.

As English speakers we know the meaning of the words, coin, sun, bubbles, face as demonstrated in our ability to use and respond to them. This is not confusing for us. We also know that if these words had the same meaning, we would be able to use them interchangeably just as we use 'large' and 'big' interchangeably.  But, we don't say, "Give me that sun", when asking for a coin. But we don't do that, because we know what they mean.

What does "intra-verbal webbing" actually teach children about the meanings of words they hear or say? Nothing. But, in order to participate in a linguistic practice, learning word meaning is foundational. Thus, when asked, 'What is something you kick?', appropriate responses might include 'a ball', 'a door', 'your brother', 'the wall'. (In behavior analysis, the meaning of "wall", "brother" or "door" is 'something you kick'.) Knowing if someone understands the meaning of a word is manifest in appropriate use and response to a word. To illustrate this further,  if a person said that they, "kick a can down the road", "kick ideas around", kick up our heels, "kick someone out of a game", "kick a habit","kick a dead horse", or 'I get a kick out of you", this would be further evidence of their understanding of the word 'kick'; that they know what the word means; they know how and when to use it.  Moreover, these phrases in which the word 'kick' is present are used for different purposes, and such varied uses eventually need to be considered in efforts within comprehensive language instruction. 

So again, what is the point of these intra-verbal webbing exercises? They do nothing to account for the rich uses found in our practice. This VB strategy of 'webbing' has nothing to do with language instruction. The goals in VB miss the point of language instruction. Moreover, as you will see below, webbing and VB in general, fails to consider that things we say have a point.
 

Goals for language instruction; to do things with words/ not simply

to accumulate 'responses'
In an ordinary language approach to teaching, rudimentary word meaning is acquired. The meaning of the word 'ball' will not be acquired simply by asking things like, "Tell me something that is round". Rudiments need to be put in place. Then words need to be systematically integrated within countless other kinds of activities such as when searching for a ball, throwing a ball, hitting, giving, rolling a ball. But then, the word 'ball' needs to be put into play across circumstances in which different linguistic technique across different language games is employed. In the examples below, we see the activities of complaining, asserting, joking, commanding. They all contain the word ball. What is important to note here is that the word "ball" is simply put into play as a part of the various language games. The use of the term is not the point of the game itself. It is not clear how 'webbing' will lead to learning to do things with words or what words mean; to learn technique.

•  Sally: "Why do we always have to use my balls?" (Game: Complaint? Request? Bid for explanation?) Johnny: "I promise to bring the balls to our next game" (Move: Mollify, promise) 

• Sally: "Your ball hit the net, again." (Game: Assertion? Accusation?, Cajoling?) Johnny: "It did not. My serves are always perfect.". (Move: Playful retort, Refutation)

• Sally: "Call Johnny and ask if we can use his balls please" (Game: Command, Request ) Johnny: "You call him" (Move: Refusal)

More on word meaning
 The examples above illustrate kinds of language games in which the use of 'ball' (the thing used in games) is integrated into activities such as promising, complaining, accusing etc. But such examples only touch on one use of the word and do not account for the different uses of the word.  We say that someone knows the meaning of a word when they use it and respond to it appropriately. So to really know a word is to know its multiple uses. Many words have multiple uses/meanings (e.g., bank, band, bark, interest, type, etc, etc, etc) . Let's look further at what we do in language.

Take the word 'ball' . We use the word "ball'  to refer to something we play with, to refer to an event (a formal affair) or to describe our experience . There are other uses as well. If I say, "I had a ball", determining if this utterance is a 'tact', 'mand' or 'intraverbal' tells us nothing about this statement's place in language; its meaning or how and when to use it and how to respond to its use. Nor does it matter if there is "joint control" or if an utterance is a "pure tact", an intraverbal, a "magical" or "a defective mand"? 

These categories of operants have nothing to do with the use of a word or sentence; with its meaning.  If someone asked, "How was the party?" and the answer given is, "I had a ball",  it's use here means, "I had a great time". Even though this utterance may be classified as an 'intraverbal', it is of no consequence. If it is determined there is multiple causation, so what? It is use we need to teach children...to use words appropriately under the appropriate circumstance and to how to do things with words. Most other considerations are pointlessly academic, misguided and pedantic.

A ordinary language approach alerts us of the need to consider that words (the same word/symbol) often have multiple uses. It is our job to see that children learn the circumstances, transactions, situations in which appropriate use comes into play. And it must be restated, these differences in use reflect norms for use. Not generalization and not science.

It's all about "Use"

This ordinary approach to language eliminates the need to sit through painfully obtuse, incomprehensible power point presentations that offer fantastical verbal analyses but little guidance. In a VB analysis offered by Vince Carbone, which included a 90 slide 'analysis' of "yes" and "no" (once available online, but now offered for CEUs in some other interation), his 'verbal analysis' lead to the conclusion that, "The behavior of saying 'no' was brought under the discriminative stimulus control of "tacting the absence of joint control". I have no idea what this means. How do you tact something that is not there?  (The definition of a tact precludes such things.)  And, even if it were possible (which it's not), wouldn't the ability to tact the absence of something first require an ability to tact it? Does this mean that children who utter 'no' are able to tact 'joint control'? 

More important is the question, "How is this analysis helpful to those trying to teach children about how to use and respond to the word 'no'. How does this analysis guide and inform teaching. If we want children to learn about the word 'no', all we need to do is teach children how to use it.  We all know that it is used to refuse, reject, warn, refute, to disallow etc. And if any analysis is needed it's not of the VB kind. It's simpler: It's to ask what is involved on a practical level. Concerning the use of "no"is not about joint control , but rather it's to recognize that what sits behind the use of yes/no is 'correspondence' or 'agreement'. E.g., It is to ask, for example, if there is correspondence/agreement between one's desire and what is offered, i.e., do you want a cookie?, (Yes, I do want a cookie, "No, I don't want a cookie) "Please clean your room" (I don't want to) or if there correspondence between facts, e.g., Is a ball an animal, or "Did you go to the store?" No convoluted VB analysis is necessary. All we have to concern ourselves with when teaching a children to use 'no' is to ensure that constituent abilities are in place and to contrive arrangements (along with rigorous practice) in order to get appropriate use in play under the appropriate circumstances.   

Saying that Verbal Behavior is language misleads

Setting goals for language instruction simply requires that we account for what we do in language and then teach to those goals. But, goals within an AVB program, as informed by Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior, are different. The goal is to acquire 'verbal units. But this is not what we do in language. We are not response emitters but rather are word users. To say that Applied Verbal Behavior is "language intervention" (Sundberg and Partington, 1998; 2010; Partington, 2010; Sidner, 2010) is simply wrong and misleads. No amount of analysis about 'what kind' of verbal operant something "is" will inform what needs to be done when teaching language.  In language there is point in doing something with words - whether it be to assert something, to refute something, to negotiate, to mollify, agree, etc. Operating within a VB paradigm misses the point that when we utter words it is to do something.