The lexical pragmatic processes of meaning modulation and metonymy are shown to apply equally to simple words, noun to verb ‘conversions’, and morphologically complex cases with non-compositional (atomic) meanings. Second, this pragmatic account is situated within a specific view of the cognitive architecture of language and communication, with the formal side of language, its recursive combinatorial system, argued to have different developmental, evolutionary and cognitive characteristics from the meaning side of language, which is essentially pragmatic/communicative. Words straddle the form/meaning (syntax/pragmatics) divide: on the one hand, they are phrasal structures, consisting of a root and variable numbers of functors, with no privileged status in the syntax; on the other hand, they are salient to language users as basic units of communication and are stored as such, in a communication lexicon, together with their families of related senses, which originated as cases of pragmatically derived (ad hoc) senses but have become established, due to their communicative efficacy and frequency of use. Third, in an attempt to find empirical evidence for the proposed linguistic form-meaning divide, two very different cases of atypical linguistic and communicative development are considered: autistic children and deaf children who develop Homesign. The morpho-syntax  appears to unfold in much the same way in both cases and is often not much different from that of typically developing children, but they diverge markedly from each other in their communication/pragmatics and their development of a system (a lexicon) of meaningful words/signs.First, the wide applicability of the relevance-theoretic pragmatic account of how new ( It has, however, been criticized for its lack of interaction with core areas of linguistics, specifically work on linguistic structure (morphology and syntax) , a somewad hoc concepts/senses’ within relevance-based lexical pragmatics and a recent application of this notion in the philosophy of language; then, I move to a related but importantly different notion of ‘ad hoc words’ and the role of metonymy in their creation, ending with thoughts about the fundamental nature of the kinds of associative connections typical of metonymy, which appear to be basic and ubiquitous in our language use and in communication more generally. In Section 3, a distinction between language  and its communicative use is adopted, with words straddling the divide . The main import of this section is to show how a syntactic treatment of words as phrasal structures, on the one hand, and the lexical pragmatic account of new word meanings, on the other, come together in explaining non-compositional word meanings (and indeed the very notion of a ‘word’). The section ends with thoughts about the kind of lexicon that sits best with this pragmatically-based view of polysemy. Section 4 is devoted to presenting evidence from two profiles of atypical linguistic and/or communicative development, which, with some provisos, points to the distinct and dissociable trajectories of the formal (morpho-syntactic) and the conceptual-semantic, thus further supporting the position that this constitutes a natural divide in human cognitive architecture. I end with a short discussion of the language ‘code’ (syntax and lexicon), which provides rich evidential input about the speaker’s meaning for the relevance-based pragmatics to work with.In Section 2, I first look at the phenomenon of ‘2.2.1.ad hoc’ concept/sense for the word or phrase. I focus on the latter here; that is, cases where an established sense of a word or phrase is retrieved from the memorized store (the lexicon), as part of the linguistic decoding process, but is adjusted by relevance-based pragmatic inference.From their earliest work on relevance theory, ad hoc occasion-specific meaning or sense for a word is a consequence of standard pragmatic processes of selecting contextual assumptions, drawing cognitive implications from the utterance in this context and making appropriate adjustments to the explicature. The ultimate result, an interpretation of the utterance, is a set of assumptions (taken to comprise the speaker’s intended meaning) which meet the criterion of optimal relevance and are in an inferentially sound relationship with one another. The pragmatic process of ad hoc concept formation may result in a narrowing of denotation, e.g., the use of ‘drink’ to mean alcoholic drink, or a broadening, e.g., the use of ‘flat’ to describe a surface that is relatively free of bumps, or various combinations of narrowing and broadening, e.g., ‘princess’  used to denote a haughty, pampered, demanding young woman, and so including some non-royal women and excluding some actual princesses (the well-behaved ones). Some of these new senses for a word become sufficiently frequently used and widespread as to become established senses of the word; they are stored in the lexicon with the word’s other established senses and retrieved together with them when the word is accessed; in such instances, we have typical cases of ‘semantic polysemy’. However, many such ad hoc concepts/senses are merely occasion-specific and transient.According to the RT lexical pragmatics account, the forming of an As an example, consider the word ‘mother’, which can be used in the following three ways (among others), to refer to (a) X’s biological mother, (b) X’s adoptive mother , and (c) the person with whom X feels a special bond of reciprocal affection . Let us consider an RT account of how this third concept expressed by ‘mother’ might be recovered in comprehending the following utterance:I owe so much to my aunty Jane – she was my real mothermother which provides a direct link to an ‘encyclopedic entry’ of assumptions/beliefs about mothers, including the following (and much more):Assume the word ‘mother’ encodes  the atomic concept A mother is a female parent .A mother is expected to provide the love and nurturing that ensures the child thrives physically and psychologically.A mother may be controlling and manipulative in ways that are not beneficial to a child.cognitive implications , which, in turn, via a mechanism of ‘mutual parallel adjustment’ of explicit content, contextual assumptions and cognitive implications, modulates the concept expressed/communicated by the word, yielding an ad hoc concept mother*, a concept whose denotation is both broader than the encoded concept mother, as it includes people who are not the female parent of a child but have given the child a kind of motherly nurturing, and also narrower in that it excludes negligent mothers . This inferential process stops when context-specific expectations of relevance  are satisfied. The ad hoc concept/sense that is inferred is a constituent of the explicature of the utterance, taking the place of the decoded concept mother.Some elements of encyclopedic information are more accessible (more highly activated) than others, depending on the content of the rest of the utterance and the specifics of the occasion of use. For the current example, the most highly activated items of information are likely to be those in (b), which are then used as contextual assumptions/premises in deriving man and the normative concept man* expressed here are what the philosophers term ‘fully dissociative’ in that they set up two distinct categories: someone may be a man descriptively but not normatively , and someone else may be a man only normatively (as Hillary Clinton is claimed to be in the utterance above). An RT account of the latter concept man* would be essentially the same as that given above for mother*, using the social stereotype of a ‘real man’ to derive cognitive implications about the person so described, from which, in turn, the ad hoc concept is derived, a concept whose denotation is both narrower in some respects and broader in others than the descriptive concept (hence the noted dissociation between the categories they denote).The utility of this account in explaining cases of word meaning variation in other fields has been demonstrated recently by several applications in the philosophy of language. I focus here on one of these, as developed by ad hoc and contextual. For a possible case of the latter, imagine the following: there is a family, the Hansens, the mother of whom emphasizes to her children that they should stay positive, calm and cheerful, even when difficult or upsetting things happen to them; while most of the family manage to comply with this ‘norm’ most of the time, the youngest child, Billy, tends to be moody and morose; next door lives his best friend, Joey Wilson, who is a happy-go-lucky boy. One day, Mrs. Hansen admonishes Billy, saying: ‘Joey is more of a Hansen than you are’, meaning, of course, that Joey, who is not a Hansen but a Wilson, has the (normative) characteristics of a Hansen family member: he is a Hansen*. As Baumgartner says, the lexical pragmatic approach (in terms of ad hoc concepts) can account for the full range of cases , while the lexical polysemy account applies only to the lexicalized  cases.Most of those who have analyzed the DCC phenomenon take a semantic view, maintaining that those words which have this dual character  are cases of lexical polysemy, both senses being established across a population of users and stored in their mental lexicon e.g., , p. 120.ad hoc word meaning creation as a pragmatic contribution to utterance comprehension and a significant source of polysemy, and (b) to show, via exposition of Baumgartner’s work on dual character concepts, the potential utility of this account in helping to explain certain cases of multiple word meaning which are central to debates in the philosophy of language.ad hoc) words in the process of online communication/interpretation.My aims in this section have been: (a) to briefly describe the relevance-based account of 2.2.New words coined on the fly in communication (as opposed to via offline stipulation) may take various forms, including (a) cases of standard word formation involving regular processes of affixation as in ‘detector-ist’, ‘expir-ation’, ‘burglar-ize’, ‘worst-est’; (b) blends, which take parts of two distinct words and form a composite, e.g., ‘brunch’, ‘motel’, ‘franglais’, ‘blizzaster’; (c) conversions, e.g., the verbs ‘to favorite’, ‘to laser’, ‘to lawn’, ‘to prodigy’ based on pre-existing phonologically identical nouns. There is a syntactic-semantic story to be told about how these new coinages acquire their compositional meanings and a relevance-theoretic pragmatic story to be told about how, for those that have them, they acquire non-compositional meanings. The syntax and pragmatics of the affixation cases are addressed in Section 3, but here I focus on ‘conversions’ , which are distinctive in that there is no phonological difference between them and the nouns on which they are based.ad hoc cases, (2c)-(2e) are more familiar, with two clearly distinct uses of the verbs in the (d/d’) and (e/e’) cases, and those in (2f) are fully established/conventionalized:Here is a sample of the phenomenon at issue: (2a)-(2b) are attested new(ish) room all the talks in the same building’ (conference organizer).2. a. ‘I’m trying to prodigied his way through the Carmen Fantasia’ (Alan Rickman).b. ‘Vasko Vassilev houdinied out of the top security jail’.c. ‘The prisoner sirened midday’.d. ‘The factory sirened the Porsche to a stop’.d’. ‘The police porched the newspaper’ [threw X onto a porch].e. ‘The boy porched all the bungalows’ [added a porch onto X].e’. ‘The developer f. to hammer , to shell , to starch (shirts), to dust ; to treasure (our time together); to bike, to bus, to jet; …lexical innovation, new words coined on the fly in communication, whose meanings are highly context-sensitive, with only the very general linguistic constraint that they are verbs.On a traditional linguistic view, conversions are cases of derivational morphology, essentially the same as the move from the noun ‘standard’ to the verb ‘standard-ize’, or from ‘code’ to ‘cod-ify’, but with a zero  affix. However, advocates of this view have often noted, with some unease, the extensive range of meanings that conversion verbs can have, meanings that are unsystematic and unpredictable, unlike that of typical cases of affixation. Consider, for instance, the very different kinds of interpretation (and relation between verb and parent noun) of ‘to room’, ‘to prodigy’, ‘to porch’, ‘to siren’, and ‘to dust’. In their ground-breaking study of nouns ‘surfacing as verbs’, metonymic shifts made by speakers in communication. As he puts it, they are typical of figurative interpretations in being ‘unpredictable and unrestricted’  and (e’), plays a key role, along with readily accessible contextual information, e.g., about boys delivering newspapers or developers building houses for (e) and (e’). In his study of conversions (both noun to verb and verb to noun), tricted’ , p. 180 do not involve a change of syntactic category. For instance, ‘a farm hand’, ‘the city suits’, ‘the crown’, ‘Downing Street’, ‘the ham sandwich’, and a wide range of semi-regular cases: e.g. container for contents ; creator for work ; place for event ; animal for meat, etc. The relation is often described as one of ‘contiguity’  between things in the world .However, there is a notable departure here from standard cases of metonymy, as reflected in the following definition of metonymy: ‘a figure of speech involving substitution of the name of an associated attribute or adjunct for that of the thing meant’ (OED). That is, metonyms typically involve the use of a noun to refer to an associated entity, person or thing rather than to an action or process, and so ad hoc concept construction, as discussed in the previous section, where the word or phrase is given a new meaning (which may become established over time giving rise to semantic polysemy). However, in recent work within relevance theory on these standard cases of nominal metonymy, new word coinage. On their pragmatic account, the new word  is inferred from accessible information in the encyclopedic entry of the input noun  and information in the wider discourse context, guided by the prevailing relevance-theoretic comprehension procedure. Importantly, they maintain that this is different from meaning modulation (narrowing/broadening/metaphor) because the encoded concept/sense  and the new ad hoc (metonymic) concept/sense  do not share cognitive implications and their denotations are disjoint; the output is thus a different (ad hoc) word from the input word.Conversions do not seem to fit this standard definition of metonymy, and more generally, figures of speech  do not usually involve a change of word category . It might seem then that in these standard cases of nominal metonymy, e.g., ‘hand’, ‘suit’, Downing Street’, ‘ham sandwich’, what we have is just another instance of ,car’s gearbox looks like a case of process for instrument metonymy and ‘reading’ with its meaning of an interpretation  is a process for result metonymy. If Wilson and Falkum are right, these are new words, distinct from the words ‘transmission’ meaning the process of transmitting and ‘reading’ meaning the process of reading, so they are further instances of denominal nouns. These morphologically complex cases are discussed in more detail in Section 3.1.What we see here is a nice convergence of independent work: A worry about metonymy as a means of using existing words to generate new words/senses is that it seems to be very general and unconstrained, allowing users to take a word and form a new  one whose meaning/content is in some sort of salient associative relation with the meaning/content of the existing one; as long as a speaker can be more or less sure that the association  is apparent to her audience, she is free to create the new word. However, metonymy just does seem to be an easy basic conceptual/pragmatic process. It arises spontaneously and cross-culturally very early on in children’s communicative use  and in their comprehension (well before they can comprehend metaphor) . Experimroot, which can be notated as follows: √stone, √porch, √houdini, √prodigy, etc. So, it is really roots rather than words that track polysemy . Yet words seem to be highly salient to ordinary language users  is generated.According to the root-based approach to syntax, touched on above in the discussion of conversions and cross-categorial polysemy, words have no formal or theoretical status in the grammar; they are phrasal structures and so, like all phrasal structures, they have a compositional semantics, which is a function of the meanings of the basic parts and their structural combination. On some views e.g., , a root non-compositional  meaning. Examples abound: ‘reactionary’ meaning backward-looking, ‘transmission’ meaning gearbox of a car, ‘flakey’ meaning unreliable, ‘execution’ meaning state-sanctioned killing, ‘demonstration’ meaning organized mass protest, ‘naturalize’ meaning make someone a citizen of a country, ‘liquidate’ meaning kill someone (violently), ‘recital’ meaning solo concert … There are two points to note here: (a) Each of these words also (inevitably) has a compositional meaning, although there is considerable variation in the current usage of these meanings ; (b) The non-compositional (idiosyncratic) meanings are not completely unrelated to the corresponding compositional meanings (or to the meanings of other words with same root). What lies behind this relatedness is, as already noted in Section 2, the fact that the very same pragmatic processes of meaning/sense modulation and metonymic word coinage, typically discussed within relevance theory only with regard to monomorphemic words, apply equally to these more structurally complex cases, a point exemplified further below.However, as widely noted, there is a glaring issue for this single syntactic engine approach to word structure: many of those phrasal entities that we think of as words have a why and when non-compositional meaning is possible, although not for the particular meanings that arise . Their general idea is that there are specific ‘syntactic domains’ within which non-compositional  meaning/content can emerge. So ‘recital’, ‘naturalize’, ‘reactionary’ have a specific kind of syntactic structure which, although it has a compositional meaning , allows for (but does not require) assignment of a special  meaning. I cannot begin to assess here the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various proposals, which are often highly technical and developed within different syntactic frameworks. What follows is a very simplified indication of one of the best-developed accounts, that of The key issue here for the syntactic treatment of word structure is that it does not account for the non-compositional meanings that complex words can have. Of course, the advocates of this approach to word structure are well aware of the issue and some have developed explanations for C-functors, i.e., categorizers, e.g., nominal, verbal, adjectival, which may (but need not) be realized phonologically by various affixes, and (2) S-functors, which project further levels of structure; these include the determiners , count/mass and number  indicators for nominal structures, and tense and aspect for verbal structures.Borer’s syntax is a ‘constructionist’ theory: the grammar generates syntactic templates (event structures) into which roots are inserted, e.g., √dog or √stone is inserted into a structure within which it becomes noun-equivalent, verb-equivalent, or adjective-equivalent, depending on its position within the structure. As well as roots, there is another kind of basic element in the system, namely ‘functors’ . Borer distinguishes two different kinds of functors and these play crucially different roles in her account of syntactic domains of non-compositional meaning . These are (1) N] al A) ize V} ation N]’, Content can be assigned at each of the structural domains headed by N, V, or A, and, as noted above, the domain delimited by V here has, in fact, received a non-compositional (idiosyncratic) meaning/content: make someone a citizen of a country. Structures headed by S-functors do not allow this:Categorizers (C-functors) allow non-compositional meaning assignment at multiple levels, so, for instance, in the structure ‘the [b. The car’s transmission [= gearbox] is in good condition.c. * The car’s transmission by Nissan for several years …the transmission (= gearbox) as made by Nissan for several years].[cannot mean: 5. a. The referral of Mary by her doctor to a rheumatologist.cf. The doctor referred Mary to a rheumatologist].[b. The referral [= person referred] left the consultant’s room feeling reassured.c. * The referral by her doctor to a rheumatologist [has arrived for her appointment].R-nominals can have special  and do not take argument structure; AS-nominals have argument structure (whether explicit or left implicit) and cannot have special . Members of each pair are derived from the same verb, [transmit], [refer], and are phonologically identical, so are distinguished by syntax alone. Here are their syntactic structures (simplified):In each of these cases, the (a) version has inherited the argument structure of the verb from which it is derived and its meaning is compositional, while the (b) version has a non-compositional meaning and it does not allow the verbal arguments, as shown in (c), in each case. That is, we find a correlation of properties here: N -tion [V transmit])6. R-nominals (can have non-comp meaning): :N -tion ([F2 subj [F1 obj [V transmit]]])]. roughly paraphrasable as ‘to make natural’. Such narrowings are common in specific contexts in which jargon terms arise: e.g. ‘transformation’, used for a kind of grammatical operation in linguistics, and ‘transference’ used in psychoanalysis for a particular psychological process, both narrowings of the general compositional meaning of the structures involved. These are both R-nominals . Something a bit different is going on with the following cases suffixed by ‘-ing’: ‘reading’ with the non-compositional meaning reading (= an interpretation), as in ‘His reading of the novel was highly allegorical’, and ‘teaching’ with the non-compositional meaning teaching (= a set of ideas/a lesson), as in ‘She was profoundly influenced by Buddhist teachings’. These seem best analyzed as involving a metonymic shift, given that arriving at an interpretation of a text is typically a result of a process of reading (= read + ing) that text and a set of ideas is typically a result of someone’s teaching (= teach + ing) them, a standard metonymic relation, according to narrowing of denotation (to the specific kind of transmission that takes place in the engine of a car) and a metonymical transfer to the object responsible for this specific kind of transmission (the gearbox), creating a new word or communication unit for language users. For more detailed discussion, see To end this section, let me indicate, with some more examples, the ways in which the non-compositional meanings of some of the morphologically complex words discussed above mesh with the pragmatic account of meaning modulation (narrowing/broadening) and new word coinage. I leave the specifics of plausible contexts for these meaning creations to the imagination of the reader. The verb ‘naturalize’ with the non-compositional meaning Summing up: what I hope to have shown here is that a root-based syntactic account of word structure with C-functor defined domains of Content can be integrated with the relevance-based pragmatic account of how specific non-compositional meanings (atomic Contents) of words arise (by meaning modulation and metonymic transfer) to give a full and unified account of word meanings. The account applies equally to the overtly affixed cases discussed in this section, to so-called ‘conversions’3.2.According to Words have a sort of double status, as they straddle the linguistic/communicative divide: they are phrasal entities generated by the syntax (language narrowly construed) – there are no words without syntax – but they are also salient as basic communicative units with shared meanings, some of which become conventionalized and so enter into the overlapping lexicons of particular groups of communicators, making them a socio-cultural component of language broadly construed. While formal linguists are interested in words as syntactic entities , psychologists tend to focus on them as communicative units, investigating their activation, their retrieval/recognition, and their integration with other words in the course of utterance processing, often measuring the time course of their online production and comprehension.and an account of how it works when used in communication. However, the two different orientations can become incompatible (even antagonistic) when the discussion moves to the fundamental nature of language, what it is for, and its evolutionary origins. Some psychologists maintain that language just is a communication system and that it should be investigated as such, and be taken to have evolved (been selected) for that purpose. For instance, These very different stances are more a matter of preferred focus than of incompatibility or rival positions – of course, we want an account of language as a faculty of the mind The ‘purpose’ of language and its evolutionary origins similarly divides these groups. Those with a communication-orientation maintain, albeit with important differences of detail among them, that it emerged in order to fulfil social-cooperative-communicative needs specific to humans . The synWhere are relevance theorists situated in this debate? As pragmaticists, their focus is, of course, on communication, and on linguistic meaning as providing evidence of what the speaker intends to communicate, rather than on detailed investigation of the formal properties of language. However, there appears to be something of a divide between those relevance theorists who see language as a system whose raison d’être is communication, having evolved as an instrument of a pre-existing ostensive communicative capacity, which created a particularly favorable environment for the emergence of language , and tho3.3.The way words work in our cognitive and communicative lives is very different from the way syntax works. First, as discussed in previous sections, word meanings are flexibly manipulated/adapted and new words are fashioned from existing words in order to express new concepts in ever-evolving contexts of communication. There is nothing comparable to this in the realm of syntax. Second, we continue to acquire new words throughout our lifetime, while our native language syntax is essentially in place and fixed by the age of five or six. Admittedly, young children learn words at a remarkably fast rate , but they are also learning vast numbers of new facts at the same age. In line with this, the evidence indicates that this acquisition process is not achieved via a dedicated cognitive system as is the case for syntax, but rather via more general cognitive processes of learning and memory which are also employed in the acquisition of new facts.performance system, in Chomsky’s terms; it is a component of the language faculty only on a broad construal, lying outside the narrow linguistic ‘competence’ system and arising from socio-cultural processes of communication and conventionalization; it registers properties of words (and their senses) like frequency of use, which are irrelevant to the syntactic system, but are reflected in the processes of word recognition, retrieval, priming and comprehension measured in online psycholinguistic experiments.As noted in the previous section, although words are syntactic entities, they have no privileged status in the narrow language faculty (syntax and its interfaces); they are simply one of the many phrasal structures generated by the syntax, whose basic units are roots and functors. For the ordinary language user, however, words are highly salient as basic units of communicationad hoc word senses/meanings are being fashioned in context all the time (via the concept modulation process that results in more specific and/or broader senses) and new ad hoc words are being coined (via metonymic associative processes), but only some relatively small subset of these becomes sufficiently well-established so as to enter a user’s mental lexicon. We need an account of the socio-cultural process(es) that result in the conventionalization of words and senses (setting aside those that come into being via authoritative stipulation); words as communication units (rather than syntactic entities) are, arguably, cultural phenomena and so are to be explained in similar terms as the evolution of other stable cultural items. The challenge here is to explain how the language use of individuals leads to group or population-wide communicative conventions. This is not an issue I can pursue here, except to mention briefly the interesting ‘epidemiological’ framework initiated by Dan Sperber. According to this approach, cultural phenomena, including words, are to be explained as the cumulative effect of multiple processes taking place within and between individual members of a population, that is, causal chains of mental and public representations, imperfectly copied from one token to the next but sufficiently similar to constitute a recognizable and stable type  includes its family of related (established) senses. Most words are polysemous: consider, for instance, the verb ‘run’ in ‘run a mile’, ‘run a business’, ‘run a meeting’, ‘run for president’, the noun ‘line’ in ‘a line on a page’, ‘a line of a face’, ‘a line of washing’, ‘a line of work’ and the adjective ‘shallow’ in ‘shallow water’, ‘shallow valley’, ‘shallow bore’, ‘shallow thought’, etc. As noted by Wittgenstein long ago, in a discussion of the word ‘game’, there is no common definitional core (contrary to some current claims in the psychology literature) to these related senses; they are the result of chains of pragmatic inference, which take senses off in various directions dependent on the contexts in which they arise. It may be that the best way to think of how these sense families are represented is as a network of connected nodes, with proximate nodes representing closely related senses, and nodes separated by multiple nodes much more distantly related . Note thThe same account applies to noun-verb ‘conversions’, with their metonymically-derived non-compositional meanings, e.g., ‘dust’ (remove dust), ‘dust’ ), ‘porch’ (throw something on a porch), ‘porch’ (add a porch to a building), ‘houdini’ (make an incredible escape), and to other morphologically complex words, e.g., ‘reactionary’, ‘naturalize’, ‘recital’, ‘transmission’, ‘detectorist’, ‘flakey’. They appear in the communicational lexicon with their non-compositional  senses. As noted in Section 3.1, they each also have a compositional meaning, composed from the sense assigned to their smallest domain of content, e.g., [√nature + n], [√recite + v], [√detect + v], plus the further levels of categorization in their structure. This compositional meaning can be seen as a function of syntax and the relatively rigid semantics of the affixes , so it is predictable, not idiosyncratic, and on those grounds need not be listed in the lexicon. However, if that meaning has become conventionalized , it might be listed along with the non-compositional meanings of the word; this remains an open question, not to be decided simply on grounds of theoretical economy , 2022. EWhat then is the language code, what is it that is decoded  divide emphasized in the previous sections, is real and can lead to dissociations in children’s development, as shown by quite a wealth of empirical evidence, some of which is briefly surveyed in the next section.4.4.1.ad hoc  meanings in context is likely to be difficult, especially if the word already has an established meaning in the autistic person’s lexicon, and so (b) their lexicons will contain little polysemy , while (c) the formal syntactic aspects of words may pose little difficulty, that is, acquisition of complex structures like ‘formation’, ‘amplifier’, ‘demonstrate’, ‘transmission’.It is widely agreed and robustly attested that autistic childrenad hoc) contextually relevant meaning; this is a major source of the widespread polysemy of the communication units we deploy. If this is right, we might reasonably expect autistic children (and youth), who are known to have difficulty with flexible pragmatic word use, to exhibit concomitant difficulties in building a communicative lexicon, at least one that resembles that of typically developing (TD) children.Although it must be acknowledged that the evidence is patchy and any conclusions are tentative at best, I will survey some studies of autistic children that I believe point in the direction of a dissociation between their acquisition of formal aspects of language, on the one hand, and their grasp of conceptual word meanings and building of a communicative lexicon, on the other. As outlined in earlier sections, my general thesis is that the meaning components of our mental lexicons are fundamentally a product of communication, with many now established meanings of words having originated from processes of online pragmatic inference which take as input an existing word meaning and derive a new , they report that the preschool-aged autistic children in their study were able to: (a) add appropriate plural markers to novel (nonsense) nouns, e.g., ‘wug’, and past tense markers to novel verbs; (b) map novel verbs in transitive frames onto causative rather than noncausative actions; (c) understand SVO word order (‘the girl tickled the boy’ vs. ‘the boy tickled the girl’); (d) understand wh-questions; (e) understand aspectual differences . So, apart from some delay, these children manifested no significant difference in these areas from typically developing (TD) children, despite the fact that they engage in far less talking and other communicative interactions, so their spontaneous language production is much lower than that of TD children.Moving now to these children’s lexical semantic abilities , this is where they seem to differ markedly from TD children. Some of the findings reported in amplifier mean?’, having just used it appropriately twice in a context); this may be explained by the noted strength in autism of rote-learning, alongside difficulty with flexible word use.Third, their categorical induction is impaired, as compared with TD children, that is, the ability to attribute a property  which has been established for one instance of a kind, say, a rabbit, to other instances of the same kind . This seems to be a matter of their understanding of natural kinds, which must affect the kind of encyclopedic information they incorporate in their concepts of these kinds and so may impact on their word meanings (assuming their words encode these concepts). Fourth, high-functioning autistic children were significantly less able to provide prototypical exemplars for a category word  than language-matched TD children. In short, the concepts or senses that constitute the meanings of the words they know seem to be differently organized from those of TD children. Finally, Summing up, 4.2.ad hoc words, whose sense has to be pragmatically inferred by the interlocutor .The phenomenon of Homesign provides a markedly different sort of case of a special population of communicators, one which, I believe, demonstrates in a very vivid way the pragmatic/communicational nature of the lexicon. This is the case of deaf children who are as socially attuned and interactive as typical children but who, due to their circumstances , have no access to a public lexicon of sense conventions. In her extensive study of their communicative development, ad hoc words and senses has the potential for conventionalization via frequency of use and weight of precedence, and they are not merely iconic but have a degree of arbitrariness typical of conventional word senses  and implicature derivation. What then is the coded part of linguistic communication? The RT answer (or assumption) has been that it is a ‘semantic representation’ or ‘logical form’, which is a conceptual structure, the conceptual part coming from the lexicon (the content of substantive words being concepts), the structural part coming from the syntax. It is typically propositionally underspecified  and will have multiple propositional realizations dependent on the pragmatics of different contexts of use ; i.a.. THowever, when people talk of ‘the language module’  or the lThe original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.RC was funded by the Leverhulme Trust RF-201-078. University College London covered the publication fee (Grant No. RF-2021-078).The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


Girls on the Run, a physical activity-based PYD program, has developed curricula and coach training with a lens toward inclusion, diversity, equity, and access (IDEA). The purpose of this study was to assess the program’s effectiveness in achieving IDEA programming goals.Evaluation studies of positive youth development (PYD) programs show promising impact on children’s psychosocial and behavioral outcomes, but less is known about how programming affects youth of varying racial, ethnic, and cultural identities. n = 342), caregivers , and coaches , and focus groups/interviews were conducted with 12 youth, 20 caregivers, and 9 coaches, diverse in race, ethnicity, ability, and other identities. Survey and focus group/interview questions addressed participants’ thoughts and experiences regarding inclusion, diversity, equity, andaccess in Girls on the Run.Surveys were completed by youth  provides a safe, inclusive, and supportive climate for all youth; (b) consists of teams with racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds; and, (c) successfully engages in strategies to reduce barriers to participation. Qualitative analyses of focus group/interview data resulted in 5 higher-order themes: (a) positive sentiments by girls, caregivers, and coaches; (b) social justice in the curriculum; (c) access to programming; (d) considerations regarding racial diversity; and, (e) serving gender-diverse participants.Girls on the Run as successful in meeting its pledge toward inclusion, diversity, equity, and access to participation. All groups recognized the program’s positive impact on girls’ social and emotional learning and fostering an atmosphere of community connectedness. Curricular lessons and coach training align with evidence based strategies for inclusive and equitable programming, which can serve as an exemplar for other out-of-school-time programs.Collective findings characterized  PYD is contexts for youth development , physical fitness, and fundamental motor skills as crucial behavioral competencies  as an afterschool program dedicated to providing opportunities for all youth to improve physical activity and psychosocial outcomes. The current manuscript presents data of the program’s sustained efforts to offer, and assess effectiveness in delivering, inclusive, diverse, equitable, and accessible programming to enable participation benefits for all youth.The National Youth Sports Strategy NYSS;  was impland physical competencies for leading a healthy lifestyle , Connectedness , and Empowerment (appreciating differences and celebrating strengths). The curriculum is designed to create space for participants’ experiences, cultures, and identities to shape the content of lessons, conversations, questions, and examples.As a PA-PYD program, GOTRifestyle . The misFive Cs framework—confidence, competence, connection, caring, and character  has been at the forefront of GOTR’s initiatives to elevate curricula, coach training, and programming. Readers are also directed to the inclusion and diversity link on the GOTR website. providing scholarships to offset registration cost for low-income families;offering resources and materials in English and Spanish;partnering with the National Center on Health, Physical Activity and Disability (NCHPAD) to adapt lessons for girls with cognitive, sensory, and physical disabilities;training coaches on abuse prevention (in partnership with Darkness to Light), trauma-sensitive instruction, and disability inclusion;welcoming all girl-identifying youth as well as non-binary and gender-nonconforming youth; andframing lessons to counter gender stereotypes that negatively impact girls’ self-esteem, motivation, and health.Girls on the Run sustains a commitment to inspire IDEA for all girls varying in race, ethnicity, culture, socioeconomic status, ability, and gender identity. In 2021, they made a pledge to advance their commitment in programming, coach training, and evaluation practices:“We are committed to leveraging our intellectual, financial, and human resources to advance strategies to be inclusive, equitable and accessible to all. Our headquarters and councils are working to bring diverse voice to the table as we know that unique perspectives strengthen the quality and scope of our organization. We pledge to be a reflection of the communities we engage, not only in appearance, but also through fostering an atmosphere of community connectedness that serves as a model for our girls and community members.”The overarching goal is that “all participants have a meaningful and engaging experience,” with objectives of updating programming and coach training; identifying strengths, opportunities, and areas for improvement; and, developing a sustainable system to advance IDEA priorities.In recent years, PYD researchers place greater priority on conducting studies and evaluating program impact with diverse youth populations . Simpkinall participants, we hypothesized that respondents of diverse identities will favorably appraise their experiences in the program as inclusive, equitable, and accessible.Given the need for greater inclusion of diverse populations in evaluation efforts and GOTR’s pledge to elevate IDEA for girls, families, and coaches, the purpose of this study was to assess the program’s effectiveness in achieving IDEA goals in curricular offerings and coach training. The Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortium, Inc. (MAEC)all participants have a meaningful and engaging experience” refers to people of all intersecting social identities—race, ethnicity, gender, ability, income level, religion, and others—are afforded opportunities to develop and improve social–emotional skills, cognitive abilities, and physical activity behaviors. To this point, each of the IDEA criteria are operationally defined and presented on the GOTR website:The overarching goal that “Inclusive: Girls on the Run is a place of belonging and welcomes, engages, and values all people.Diverse: The Girls on the Run movement mirrors the communities it serves. People of all races, ethnicities, thinking styles, abilities, generations, social roles, income levels, sexual orientation, gender identity, educational levels, and religions are represented and serve as active members of the organization.Equitable: Girls on the Run is a place where systemic disparities are acknowledged and addressed. Policies and practices ensure everyone can activate their limitless potential.Accessible: Everyone can fully participate in Girls on the Run programming, retrieve and utilize resources, and contribute through volunteer and employment opportunities.Prior to collecting data, a 23-member advisory group was convened to provide input about the content and relevance of survey and focus group/interview questions. Members included GOTR headquarters staff, Council staff, site liaisons, caregivers, former youth participants, and programming experts . An initial meeting entailed GOTR and MAEC personnel introducing the project purposes and tasks requested on behalf of the advisory group. Follow-up communications involved feedback on survey and focus group/interview questions and initial findings.Surveys were developed in collaboration by MAEC evaluation team members and GOTR leadership staff to be administered via Qualtrics. Questions were intentionally designed to focus on participants’ thoughts and experiences regarding inclusion, diversity, equity, and access in Girls on the Run. Questions were tailored to youth participants, caregivers, and coaches, and available in English and Spanish. Many questions were asked in parallel format  at Girls on the Run,” “All participants on my team feel safe  at Girls on the Run”).n = 342), caregivers , and coaches .Responses represented 76 Councils (of nearly 175), including youth participants , with 39% in their first season. Most coaches identified as female (97.4%); others identified as male (1.3%), nonbinary (0.08%), transgender (0.08%), or chose “prefer to self-describe” (0.16%) or “prefer not to say” (1.0%).Caregivers indicated being their child’s biological or birth parent (95%), with others a relative, legal guardian, or foster or adoptive parent. Coaches averaged 3 seasons’ experience in GOTR ; being included, welcomed, and instilled with a sense of belonging; and, the curriculum. For caregivers, issues focused on equity; their child’s experiences; their own experiences and perceptions of the program; the curriculum; social justice; and, other considerations . For coaches, issues of equity, team members’ experiences, and the curriculum were also at the forefront, in addition to questions regarding coach training and parent/family engagement. Questions were followed with clarification and elaboration probes. GOTR’s Chief Program Officer contacted Council Directors about the study purpose and required tasks. Initially 87 Councils indicated interest, and additional information was provided about the survey, timeline, and recruitment strategies. This included an email restating the purpose , templates for distributing to caregivers and coaches, and an online link and QR code to access the survey. Study participants were informed that responses were confidential and upon completion they would be eligible to win a gift card. At survey’s end, respondents were prompted about volunteering for a focus group or interview with an added gift card incentive. Volunteers provided demographic information, which experiences they could speak to , and whether they permit their child to participate in a focus group or interview regarding their experiences. From this information, focus group and interview participants were identified using purposive sampling, and various affinity groups were formed to ensure diversity in race, ethnicity, language spoken at home, and types of GOTR experiences they could speak to. Surveys, focus groups, and interviews were conducted virtually.M) and standard deviations (SD) for all survey items for girls, caregivers, and coaches. Independent t-tests were conducted to determine whether responses differed by race/ethnicity, comparing those who identified as White-only to those of any other racial or ethnic category, labeled as Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC).p < 0.0031 for girls (0.05/16 items), p < 0.0026 for caregivers (0.05/19 items), and p < 0.0016 for coaches (0.05/32 items). Effect size (ES) was calculated using d ≥ 0.20 = small, ≥0.50 = medium, ≥0.80 = large.We calculated means , “At Girls on the Run, everyone knows how to say my name or does their best to say my name the right way,” with White participants reporting stronger agreement (M = 3.73) than BIPOC participants (M = 3.55). However, both means indicate strong agreement and the effect size indicated small practical significance.Several survey items centered on feelings of inclusion in GOTR . A few items focused on positive developmental outcomes . For almost all items (14 of 16), responses tended toward “strongly agree” (>3.5), indicating high approval with their experiences of feeling safe, included, and treated equitably . RatingsM = 3.72) and that their child was able to participate equitably to her peers (M = 3.76).Responses reflected strong approval on items closely related to their child’s participation experiences reflecting inclusion and accessibility . They also felt strongly that lesson content was relevant and useful for their child. Caregivers affirmed that coaches cared about who their child was as a person. For those who reported their child required accommodations to participate, 100% agreed or strongly agreed that GOTR provided the accommodations needed . Scores for 2 items were just below 3.5: “My child’s coaches communicate with me on a regular basis about what my child is learning in Girls on the Run,” and “I am familiar with the Girls on the Run lesson content and its program goals.” These items had larger SD’s than other items, indicating greater variability in how familiar caregivers are with lessons.Caregivers strongly agreed GOTR is inclusive, accessible, and equitable for SD’s for these items indicate more varied perceptions. White and BIPOC caregivers differed (p < 0.0026) on these two items (d = 0.44) and imperceptible for diversity of child’s teammates (d = 0.18). Perceived importance of teaching about social justice and whether their child’s team was representatively diverse were clarified in focus group/interview responses.Scores for 2 items were closer to 3.0: “It is important to me that the content presented during Girls on the Run lessons includes social justice topics,” and “The diversity of my child’s teammates is representative of the diversity in my community.” Again, the higher wo items ; BIPOC aCoaches favorably appraised the program’s accessibility, diversity, and inclusion and their role in reinforcing these ideals . CoachesSeveral questions prompted whether coaches felt knowledgeable and prepared to serve girls from diverse backgrounds. Scores ranged from 3.37 to 3.55 for feeling equipped with the knowledge and skills to serve various groups, with greater confidence reported for working with individuals diverse in race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and disability than for those of English Learner status and gender identity. Most coaches agreed their GOTR training prepared them to work with girls and families of diverse backgrounds and that their council provides resources to address barriers families may face when accessing GOTR.p < 0.0016). First, BIPOC coaches felt stronger about the importance of including social justice topics in GOTR lessons. Second, BIPOC coaches felt better equipped to work with diverse participants based on 5 of 7 demographic groups: race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, national origin, English Learner status, and gender identity. However, scores for both groups fell between “agree” and “strongly agree,” and effect sizes were mostly small (d’s = 0.27–0.48), with a medium effect size (d = 0.56) for English Learner status. No differences emerged for working with girls of varying religious affiliation and disability status.Statistically significant differences emerged between White and BIPOC coaches for 6 items (Two findings from open-ended responses were: (a) a majority of caregivers and coaches believe it is important to include social justice topics in lessons, and (b) a relatively small number of caregivers and coaches reported that girls experienced barriers in accessing GOTR. Caregivers (80.4%) and coaches (86.1%) agreed or strongly agreed with, “It is important to me that the content presented during Girls on the Run lessons includes social justice topics,” and were asked to describe topics that should be included . Most follow-up responses included the 3 examples, along with several other topics . One coaOnly 3.6% of caregivers responded “yes” to, “My child has experienced barriers in accessing Girls on the Run .” Most followed by describing transportation, cost, and language barriers. One caregiver wrote, “… with the program ending at 4:50 it was a challenge to leave work. We relied on a lot of family help and having to leave work.” Location changes due to COVID-19 contributed to transportation issues because sessions were moved off-site due to no school programming. Some caregivers named cost as a barrier while others mentioned that cost was initially a barrier but they were able to receive aid: “We received financial support to participate. That was hugely helpful and much appreciated!”For coaches, 27.4% agreed or strongly agreed that the girls on their team experienced barriers. When asked to describe, a majority listed similar barriers as caregivers, including transportation and cost. Coaches also reported location and scheduled times of GOTR as barriers and mentioned that some families started carpooling to address transportation challenges. Language translation was also cited as a barrier. One coach wrote, “Three of the seven girls [on my team] spoke Spanish at home. None of the coaches spoke Spanish. One email was translated by a GOTR director before the season started but there was no support after that.”Focus group/interview analyses within and across groups resulted in 5 higher-order themes: (a) positive sentiments by girls, caregivers, and coaches; (b) social justice in the curriculum; (c) access to GOTR programming; (d) considerations regarding racial diversity; and, (e) serving gender-diverse participants. Each theme is described, along with lower-order themes and example quotations. A visual of the higher-and lower-order themes is depicted in Youth participants, caregivers, and coaches discussed many positive aspects of the program revolving around IDEA. Girls and caregivers believed coaches created a welcoming space. Girls discussed feeling supported, learning about interesting topics, and using strategies like Star Power in social contexts and situations outside GOTR . Coaches believe the curriculum fosters inclusivity, and caregivers talked about how their child’s unique experience as a GOTR participant has created opportunities for friendships outside the program.Inviting, Supportive Space. Caregivers and girls commented that coaches created a warm and friendly environment, provided individual attention, and encouraged girls to participate in a way most comfortable for them. A caregiver in the Latinx Affinity Group said (in Spanish), “In the group my daughter was the only Hispanic girl … considering [she] had just arrived in the United States and did not speak any English when she entered the program, she always felt very included. The coaches … made her feel welcome, happy … they did a great job in welcoming her and making her feel like she belong[ed].” One girl described, “So, we were doing the 5 K … there was this person on crutches, and she was so determined to finish … she did the whole 5 K with crutches on. The coaches … let her do it and they didn’t say that she was doing anything wrong. So, I felt that that was very equal … it was kind.” Other girls gave examples of encouragement: “They [coaches] give us like positive messages. Like if somebody said ‘I can’t do it’, they would say ‘you can do it’”; “At practices, my friends kept cheering me on to finish a lap.”The first lower-order theme is Inclusive Curriculum. Coaches emphasized that the curriculum is relevant and applicable to participants of all backgrounds. The focus on self-and other-acceptance fosters an inclusive environment. One coach expressed: “The curriculum really is inclusive in so many ways, beyond just language and race, but accepting who you are and loving who you are … and one of the things we loved was seeing the girls light up each other’s Star Power. Those girls could do that so quickly, find ways to compliment each other beyond just superficial … I think it’s a lesson that the girls actually take to heart.”The second lower order theme is Opportunities for Learning. When asked about the most interesting topics they learned during lessons, they mentioned appreciating individual differences, Star Power, being yourself, and inner beauty. One participant said, “… people can be different and still sometimes like the same things.” Another girl said, “I like the Star Power … because it was like you got to help others when they are kind of sad and then you helped them.” Girls also discussed using Star Power in domains outside GOTR, “The Star Power thing helped me in a lot of situations with my friends … [sometimes I would be asked for advice and] I would tell them some advice the Girls on the Run coaches taught me … because they were very clouded and I needed to bring the Star Power to life.”Girls commented on the third lower-order theme of Developing Diverse Friendships Outside GOTR. For example, the tee-shirt given to all GOTR participants helped girls meet friends outside of the program and fostered a connection. A caregiver in the Black/ African American Affinity Group gave this example: “I think [GOTR] promoted [cross-group friendships] without even knowing they actually were doing it … my daughter, when she got her shirt, she wore it to her school. And then some girls there saw it and they had a connection just because they had been in Girls on the Run before, even though they were not in the same program with her … it helped make friendships even outside of Girls on the Run.”As the fourth lower-order theme, caregivers noted that girls were Mixed Viewpoints on Social Justice. Most participants advocated for including social justice topics while others questioned whether it would be appropriate or accepted. A caregiver in the Black/African American Affinity Group said, “It’s our reality right now. So, I think it’s appropriate and it could be tailored to their age … so they have a better understanding of what’s going on …” A caregiver in the Latinx Affinity Group said, “I think it’s always important. It helps them to become the leaders of tomorrow and show them there are certain things that we should … stand up for or we should not accept in life.”Caregivers and coaches shared views about whether and how social justice topics should be included in the curriculum and coach training. The first lower-order theme is build on existing lessons, “I think part of Girls on the Run is getting girls to be comfortable in their own skin and empowering them. And then part of that is taking that empowerment and thinking about other groups of people and how they can use that for good … it’s just such an important thing to instill in this age group.” By contrast, some coaches felt that using the phrase “social justice” might turn some families away from GOTR. One coach said, “I feel like specific social justice topics … [are] just so riddled with politics and opinion [and] could be misinterpreted …” Other coaches acknowledged that social justice might be taught in ways to avoid offending some families by focusing lessons on compassion, respect, and standing up for others. One coach said, “I think it’s very important … to address [social justice topics] at Girls on the Run, but I am also on board with it through the lens of compassion, and understanding, and respect, because … it will just turn some families off immediately.” Some suggested that examples and scenarios already existing in the lessons could be updated to describe girls of various demographic backgrounds. One coach suggested this alternative scenario, “‘Your friend won the award that you really wanted. How would you treat her?’ Maybe instead it’s, ‘One of my friends called another one of my friends a racist name. How do you respond and what do you do?’”A coach explained how social justice topics and caregiver expressed: “… I’m not necessarily signing her [my child] up for an education in social justice. I’m signing her up to live in an experience that she’s going to learn about herself, and the people around her. And there’s going to be representation from a lot of different people on the team for her to learn about ….”Two respondents felt that social justice should be taught at home, not at GOTR. A caregiver in the Disability Affinity Group said, “I think there are definitely aspects [of social justice] that could be talked about but … there are certain things I want to have conversations with my children that I do not feel like anybody else should be talking to them about.” A coach Coach Training and Resources on Social Justice. A caregiver in the Latinx Affinity Group expressed the importance of training so that coaches “have the skills to steer the dialogue in the right way.” Coaches seemed keen on learning more about how to teach social justice topics and how to answer questions by the girls on their team, acknowledging that they do not feel completely prepared to discuss those topics. Some coaches suggested videos that model how coaches might respond to questions. They praised the safe space that GOTR creates for asking questions, so they anticipated that they will get questions about social justice topics. One coach explained, “Girls on the Run does such a great job of giving space for girls to talk about different things that are happening in life, happening in their school … if I felt equipped to discuss topics of social justice, then I feel like it could be done in a way that could be constructive.”The second lower-order theme is Caregivers and coaches appreciate that GOTR made updates to coach training over the years to include social justice topics. A caregiver in the Latinx Affinity Group said, “… Girls on the Run cares about the girls and cares about what they teach them. And how they want them to be involved within society, to love themselves more and to feel empowerment as a little girl … Because tomorrow … that girl could be our president.” A coach explained, “I would say that there was no diversity training whatsoever my first year … But as the world has changed and things evolve, those topics have been worked into the coach training … it’s good when you are working with an organization to hear that affirmation like, yes, we hear this is going on, we see you, we know the challenges you are going to face. This is how you may handle it.”Scholarships are Essential. Respondents emphasized the importance of financial assistance for increasing access to the program. One coach stated, “… if it wasn’t for the scholarship program, then I think it would all be one economic background … The second team I coached was 100% funded by Girls on the Run. And then the other two were a mix, but I couldn’t tell the difference. All the girls seem very grateful to be there regardless of how they got there, but I know that there would be a good portion that couldn’t be there without funding.” A caregiver in the Latinx Affinity Group reinforced this point (in Spanish): “Girls on the Run granted my daughter a scholarship for a percentage of the program cost; As a single mother of three, the financial support allowed my daughter to have this experience; without it we would not have been able to have her participate.”Some caregivers and coaches cited cost, transportation, and language as potential barriers to participating in GOTR and described strategies to help overcome them. The first lower-order theme is Some coaches explained that their councils put in extra effort to fundraise or form community partnerships to cover fees. One said, “We partnered with our community-based school team to make sure each girl got a new pair of running shoes for the season … we work with our community partners to make sure the girls are equipped to participate properly. Most of our girls are there on scholarship … because it is a pretty high rate of poverty in our school. So, having access to the program … these girls have a safe afterschool program to go to.” Another coach explained, “… our council does quite well, as far as making it accessible for anybody … we do unlimited scholarships, and we just fundraise more to cover that.”Planning for Transportation. Some respondents discussed that transportation challenges led to dropout or not being able to sign up in the first place. A caregiver in the Latinx Affinity Group described: “Unfortunately, there’s no sidewalks where we live. Let’s say we did not have a car. We couldn’t walk [to where we have practice] without jeopardizing life and limb. Equity would be making available transportation for those girls who needed it … it would be the difference between showing up and not showing up.” One coach elaborated, “transportation is always an issue, and it’s typically getting home in a school where it was 100% scholarship. Because a lot of parents work, and getting kids home at 5:00 at night can be a really big challenge … one girl ended up falling off a couple practices at the end of the season because she couldn’t get a ride home anymore.”The second lower-order theme is Some coaches arranged for transporting girls who needed it to participate. They identified the need early on, stayed late with a participant until their ride arrived, or provided transportation to and/or from practice.Importance of Language Translation. Some caregivers and coaches said registration materials were available in English and Spanish, but noted they are often not translated to other languages in the community. Respondents also mentioned that while the GOTR website is a great resource, its reach is restricted due to limited language access. Some councils’ websites offer multiple languages, and some councils’ websites only offer English or both English and Spanish. One coach explained, “I know that there’s a family booklet we give out, and it can be in English or Spanish. But there’s so much great information on a website, but it’s only in English … I’ve always felt, both for international and the local councils, that it’d be great for families who … speak another language to be able to access that information ….”The third lower order theme is One coach noticed that some girls would explain GOTR materials to their parents who do not speak English, so their council is trying to resolve this situation, “Our council’s working on translating materials like the application packet. Because a lot of our girls fill out the packet themselves and have their parents sign it. So, the parents do not really read through it.” One Spanish-speaking caregiver in the Latinx Affinity Group commented on their positive relationship with coaches in making the effort to understand each other. If there is coach turnover, however, this caregiver expressed the need to stay informed: “The teachers who were in charge were all Americans; none of them speak Spanish … If next season the coaches change, I will have to initiate communication … so that I am well connected/informed. Hopefully they are the same coaches, even though they do not speak my language … we try to understand one another … [laughs] They with me and I with them.”Diversity of GOTR Participants. Most girls, caregivers, and coaches felt their teams were diverse in race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and language. A caregiver in the LGBTQIA+ Affinity Group described, “I think because it’s not with one school, “we’ve pulled from a really diverse group of kids … We see different colored faces and … the girls talk about that and they talk about their backgrounds. So, I think that’s been really a positive experience for my daughter.” Another caregiver in the Latinx Affinity Group said, “At the site I was at, every girl was treated pretty much the same. And my daughter was the only person who was not a Latina at this location. So, I think it was great that she got to be around people that are different from her, but she don’t have to feel any different at all. She made great friends, and all of the advisors treated them all well.”Most respondents felt their teams were diverse, but some discussed a noticeable lack of diversity. There were also mixed perceptions about diversity of the coaches. The first lower-order theme is A few respondents commented on the apparent lack of diversity on their teams, due to the makeup of their school or community composition. One caregiver in the Latinx Affinity Group said, “It would be very difficult for the teams to be diverse, because I’m pretty certain that the school is 95% White … There might be some Asians, some Latinos. Very few Black people. I think the Girls on the Run group probably reflects that … [The other families on the team] tend to be middle-class, White, highly educated.”Diversity of GOTR Coaches. One caregiver noticed and appreciated the coaching diversity on their daughter’s team, but others commented on lack of coach diversity and possible financial barriers to being a volunteer coach. A caregiver in the Asian or Multiracial Affinity Group said, “… there’s not a really big mix in ethnicities with the coaches … and probably because you have to be able to take time off of work to do that, and a lot of working parents that may add to that diversity may not be available to do so.” When asked for suggestions on how GOTR could recruit differently so that coaches are diverse and representative of their teams, a coach of color discussed the financial barrier due to GOTR being an unpaid volunteer experience: “In short of being able to pay coaches, I don’t know what else they could do, because I know it is a huge privilege for me to be able to have that much time that I can volunteer, and I know a lot of other women that do not have that privilege.”The second lower-order theme is Considerations Regarding Gender Identity. Some felt it is important to ask GOTR participants their pronouns and, along with adding “they” with he and she into the curriculum, this would help foster inclusivity. There were also questions about whether the title of the program is non-inclusive for those who are exploring gender identity. One caregiver in the LGBTQIA+ Affinity Group said, “I think it’s a little tricky when you’ve called yourself Girls on the Run, so that might be creating a hurdle. If you think about it from the gender perspective, with so many people now … being very fluid about their gender identity … several of my daughter’s friends are thinking about their gender identity right now, and they’re coming to Girls on the Run but they’re not necessarily identifying as a girl.” A coach who identified as queer shared concerns: “I was honestly pretty apprehensive because I don’t like how cis-normative it is … the name [Girls on the Run] makes it pretty non-inclusive to non-binary, queer, and/or trans youth. And there was never any conversation about pronouns or self-identified gender when doing introductions in camp … in the curriculum, there’s a lot of examples of ‘girl slash boy’, ‘him slash her’, where a gender-neutral term could very easily be [used] to further normalize that language for the [participants].”A few caregivers and coaches spoke to the need for more gender-inclusive language in the curriculum and coach resources, particularly on how to have conversations with participants and their families about gender identity. The first lower-order theme is Coach Training and Resources on Gender Inclusivity. Coaches desire training specific to gender identity, both in terms of their own education as well as recommendations for how to talk to participants in an age-appropriate way. One coach said, “… it would be important for coaches to have the resources so that they can, on a personal level, understand the actual things they would be talking about before trying to teach about them. For example, if there was a lesson about gender identity, I think it’d be pretty hard to teach that without prior knowledge and understanding of sex versus gender and the gender spectrum.” Another expressed: “… if Girls on the Run changes their perspective [on gender] or expands the way they speak about participants … as a coach I would want some training on how to navigate that with other coaches, parents, and the girls at the level of awareness they are at … talking about this to a third to fifth grader would be much different than talking to a parent. I would want to know what’s the recommended language, because just thinking about it makes me cringe … because I can think about all of those questions ….”The second lower-order theme is Girls on the Run is an evidence-based PA-PYD program, offering access and equity for diverse and underserved youth and demonstrating efficacy in promoting social, emotional, and behavioral competencies ability or English Learner status. Positive perceptions prevailed among White and BIPOC groups regarding programming from an IDEA lens.Survey responses revealed highly favorable impressions from youth participants, caregivers, and coaches regarding GOTR’s efforts to offer accessible, inclusive, and equitable opportunities for girls from diverse backgrounds. In fact, Focus groups and interviews added detailed narrative to clarify, explain, and interpret the high survey ratings. Positive sentiments predominated discussions among various affinity groups, supporting and elaborating upon survey findings that GOTR is characterized as an inviting, supportive space; the lessons are inclusive and culturally responsive; opportunities for learning social–emotional skills abound; and identifying as a GOTR participant lends opportunities for forming friendships with diverse peers. The social justice theme revealed that coaches and caregivers value lessons on compassion, respect, and standing up for others, and they praised GOTR for creating a safe space for participants to ask questions. Coaches appreciated GOTR’s continued efforts to update training related to social justice, but they also desired additional training and resources. Access to programming despite potential barriers was deemed successful due to scholarship funding, options for resolving transportation challenges, and efforts to translate communications to families. Collectively, quantitative and qualitative findings revealed opportunities for skill building, a sense of belonging, and supportive relationships, among other features, that align with evidence-based best practices for promoting PYD among diverse youth .already included in the curriculum, which some are . Rather, caregivers were asked, “how important is it to you” that GOTR content includes social justice topics. Thus, caregivers may not be aware of existing lessons on social justice and, indeed, findings indicated that many are not familiar with the lessons their children experience. Thus, more dialogue is needed among GOTR administrators, families, and coaches to share what is included in curriculum content and how to deliver it in an age-appropriate way.Although the majority of qualitative responses supported favorable survey ratings, some caregivers and coaches voiced alternative perspectives about social justice in the curriculum, access to programming, and gender diversity. Though fewer in number, their expressions are valuable and provide insights for reinforcing GOTR’s pledge to “bring diverse voice to the table as we know that unique perspectives strengthen the quality and scope of our organization.” Interviewees frequently affirmed the importance of including social justice in the lessons, but contrary views raised the potential for “turning families off” or that values should be “taught at home, not at GOTR.” A large percentage of caregivers (81%) and coaches (86%) agreed or strongly agreed with, “importance of including social justice content in the lessons,” but greater variability of opinions existed on this topic than others. It should be noted that respondents were not asked whether social justice topics are all youth. A keystone of effective PYD programs is “integration of family, school, and community efforts”  and social contexts  on children’s acquisition of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Developing youths’ moral values toward social justice, such as standing up against discrimination, bias, and prejudice, will be achieved through a concerted effort by respected individuals in their social system. GOTR is strategically positioned, alongside family, school, and community, to influence morals and values that respect racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity.Multiple viewpoints about what IDEA content is taught to elementary-age youth pose an important opportunity to sustain GOTR’s pledge of ensuring a culturally responsive approach to designing activities for efforts” , so makiefforts”  and deveefforts”  highlighCoaches expressed confidence in GOTR’s comprehensive training for preparing them with the knowledge and skills to work with participants of diverse backgrounds. Focus groups and interviews revealed a desire for additional training on strategies to teach social justice topics and answer questions in an age-appropriate manner. GOTR is continually updating coach training to include relevant content and effective methods that engage coaches in problem-solving and decision-making. Training modules include social issues and scenarios inclusive of girls with diverse backgrounds. Coaches are required to complete the entire training covering consistent lesson delivery, disability inclusion, and trauma-informed instruction. A challenge for GOTR has been ensuring that coaches fulfill all of these modules prior to the season. Findings prompt further interest in training experiences that include content, activities, and methods for addressing topics in a culturally and developmentally-appropriate way.BIPOC coaches reported greater ability to work with girls of diverse backgrounds , an important revelation given that over 80% of coach survey respondents were White. Predominance of White coaches naturally raises the need for recruiting coaches who are racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse. Youth are more likely to identify with models who are similar in characteristics such as race, ethnicity, and culture, which results in greater motivation to learn and adopt behaviors and skills being taught . RespondSurvey responses suggested access to and equity in participation, for example through scholarships, partnering with NCHPAD to enable accommodations, and communications in English and Spanish. Caregivers strongly agreed that their child felt included in all activities and participated equally to peers. Coaches praised their council for providing resources to offset barriers families might face in accessing GOTR. In focus groups and interviews, which featured greater participant diversity, some caregivers and coaches expressed concerns that disadvantaged families faced financial, transportation, and language barriers. They voiced a need to further reduce disparities by providing more scholarships, fundraising opportunities, transportation options, and translation to languages other than just English and Spanish. These barriers to accessing participation—financial, transportation, and language—are common for out-of-school-time programs and especially affect families of color, lower income, and migrant status .gender diverse participants” emerged as a theme among a smaller but vocal group of coaches and caregivers. Some recommended more gender-inclusive language in the curriculum and the need for more training and resources to effectively teach lessons and answer youths’ questions in an age-appropriate way. GOTR welcomes youth who are non-binary or gender-nonconforming and want to participate in a girl-centered program. Thus, the program is inclusive of diverse gender identities, but this information may not be known or noticed by families. GOTR can explore ways to make the Grown-Up Guide (resource for caregivers) more accessible and reinforce the importance of caregivers investing time to engage with their child on social issues, which again invokes the importance of youth learning from multiple individuals in their social system.While focus groups/interviews mostly revolved around access and inclusion based on racial, cultural, and socioeconomic diversity, “serving PYD and SEL researchers highlight challenges and strategies for designing culturally responsive activities . Simpkinvisible forms of diversity. A limitation is that we were unable to assess aspects of invisible diversity, such as ways of thinking, learning, processing, communicating, and behaving . Future research evaluating PA-PYD program impact might consider ways to assess both visible and invisible forms of diversity. Finally, GOTR programming transitioned to offering three delivery modes from Spring 2020 to Spring 2021: 100% virtual, 100% in-person, and hybrid. These variations may have affected how girls, caregivers, and coaches perceived experiences, although Fall 2020 season findings showed that all modes were received favorably by caregivers and coaches and open-ended narrative revealed evidence of season-long impact , Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA. Because the study exclusively involved the examination of anonymous, secondary data, the research is not regulated by RIC, and written informed consent for participation was not required.MW and LK drafted the early versions of the manuscript, analyzed the quantitative data, and interpreted the qualitative themes. AR provided the secondary data set. All authors conceived the study, contributed to revising the manuscript, and approved the final submitted version.The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.