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. This is what informs an 'ordinary language' approach to intervention. This is a fundamentally different conceptual framework than the current and popular 'Verbal Behavior' approach with it's concomitant commitment to teaching mands, tacts, echoics, autoclitics and intraverbals.

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 those better known studies have been done. And since AVB is not about language, as we will see, mastery of a language necessarily occurs outside the constraints of such popular conceptual approaches 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, to learn a language is to learn a 'way of life'... such that 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. But then, rather than 'wait' for circumstances which might offer opportunities to teach what might be said, 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... according to convention. 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 and not 'determined', as behavioral theory/ philosophy insists.

Learning a language is much like learning to play chess.   When learning to play chess, first, one learns 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 may be 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 be seen as tools that can be used to different effect in different circumstances...to appease, cajole, tell etc.

 The premise of VB has nothing to do with learning a language

Language is not behavior. We don't language. We use language. It is a tool.  We may consider techniques for use of tools. Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior is not an analysis of language...but of behavior; the behavior of speakers.  It is an analysis which attempts to account for the controlling variables which result in the behavior of uttering sounds in the presence of other sounds or things; a response. 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. Formats for teaching and accumulating responses vary. One popular format is intraverbal webbing.
 
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 above are designed to produce the response "ball". 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 and response to words is central to learning a language. In the cases above, the point of language learning is lost. Emphasis in language learning needs to be on the meaning of the words, 'kick', 'round', 'bounce', 'you', 'what', etc. so that, for example, children learn to say what they are kicking, that they learn to kick what they are told to kick, to answer questions related to what they or others are doing, i.e that children learn to use and respond to words appropriately according to the rules for their use.  In VB training, the meaning of the words "bounce, kick, round, you, etc. are relegated to the static realm of antecedent stimuli.  This is misguided. If a child utters  "ball" when the above antecedents are presented, so what? What does this format actually teach children about the words they hear or say; About their meaning?

In order to participate in a linguistic practice, learning word meaning is essential. Thus, when asked, 'What is something you kick?', requires an understanding of the word 'kick' and the place the word has in language. As such, understanding would be manifest in appropriate responses that might include 'a door', 'your brother', 'the wall'. But we also can say, understanding would be manifest if a person said that we, "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". All of these phrases in which the word 'kick' is present are used for different purposes, in different language games and all eventually need to be considered in efforts within comprehensive language instruction.  And to the other questions, e.g.,"What is something round?", the number responses is enormous including numbers, balls, but also heads, wheels, edges etc, etc. We 'round' off, 'round' up (to the highest number or horses), 'round' out etc. So again, what is the point of these intraverbal exercises? They do nothing to account for the rich uses or great variety of appropriate response found in our practice. If the goal it is to teach the response "ball", it is an empty and unconsidered effort and has nothing to do with language instruction. 

The goals in VB miss the point of language instruction. The effort fails to consider a words place in language and efforts directed toward mastery of its use.

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

On the other hand, in an ordinary language approach, rudimentary word meaning needs to be acquired. The meaning of the word 'ball' will not be acquired simply by asking things like, "Tell me something that is round", but requires bringing/finding/searching for a ball,  considering possession or placement of a ball, throwing, kicking, rolling, squeezing a ball as as well as accounting for one's activities with a ball, e.g, "Mommy just kicked the ball in the net". This is no easy task. But, once these rudiments are in place, words can be put into play within countless other kinds of activities.  Thus, below we see  how the word 'ball' might come into play within circumstances/games which arise. 
 
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)

The examples above illustrate activities of complaining, asserting, joking, commanding. They all contain the word ball. The word "ball" is simply put into play as a part of the games, but 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.  (But 'webbing' does result in nice graphs.)
 
More on word meaning

A word's meaning is revealed in use. The examples above illustrate kinds of language games in which the use of 'ball' (the thing used in games) is put in play. But such examples only touch on one use of the word and do not account for the different meanings of the use of the word.  We say that someone knows the meaning of a word when they use it and respond to it appropriately. Appropriate use is determined by norms for their use. A nice illustration of how convention determines meaning is seen in how the same word may have numerous meanings.

Let's consider what actually occurs 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 or place in language. 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 would be our job to see that children learn the circumstances, transaction, situations in to appropriate use words or phases. And it must be restated, these differences in use reflect norms for use. Not generalization and not science.

It's all about "Use"

I can't let go of this because it goes to the heart of language. It is so elegant and helpful. Moreover, it eliminates the need to sit through painfully obtuse, incomprehensible power point presentations that offer fantastical analysis but little guidance. In a VB analysis offered by Vince Carbone, which included a 90 slide 'analysis' of "yes" and "no, 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. First, how do you tact something that is not there?  And, even if it were possible (which it's not giving the definition of 'tact'), 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, 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", it's not about joint control , but rather it's to recognize that what sits behind the use of yes/no is 'correspondence'. E.g., It is to ask, for example, if there is correspondence between one's desire and what is offered, i.e., do you want a cookie?, (Yes, I do 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 understanding what goes into 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 VB 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. This requires description. Thus, in language instruction, children learn how to use and respond appropriately to words according to normative practice. But, goals within an AVB program, as informed by Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior, are different. The goal is to 'acquire responses';  to automatically emit words (sounds) 'controlled' by stimuli across various response classes. 
 
To say that Applied Verbal Behavior is "language intervention" (Sundberg and Partington, 1998; 2010; Partington, 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, etc. within the activity. Operating within a VB paradigm misses the point that we do things with words; that what we do with words has a point. However, operating within a VB paradigm does inform which verbal operants children will be directed to memorize.