词汇被视为语言学习的中心要素，学习者的词汇水平直接关系到了其今后英语综合能力的发展。尽管如此，在当前的词汇教学实践中，仍然面临着以输入为核心、输出相对有限、教学方式过于单一以及学生对词汇学习缺乏热情等一系列问题。这些问题导致了学习者在词汇能力和词汇学习态度方面没有得到有效的提升，从而使得词汇教学效果不佳。因而本研究试图探究将产出导向法实践于高中英语词汇教学中对高中英语学习者词汇学习效果以及态度的影响，以期解决当前英语词汇课堂中存在的问题，并为中小学英语词汇教学研究提供一种新思路。

本研究以输入与输出假说、互动假说为理论基础，以教育实验法、文献研究法、问卷调查法和访谈法为研究方法，选取更新的词汇能力测试卷（Updated Vocabulary Levels Test）、产出性词汇能力测试卷（Productive Vocabulary Levels Test）、学校月考测试卷中的书面表达题目、“英语词汇学习态度调查问卷”和半结构化访谈提纲为研究工具，以K市Z中学高一年级两个班共99名学生为研究对象开展了为期三个月的实验研究。本研究主要探讨以下两个研究问题：第一，产出导向法在高中英词汇语教学中对被试词汇能力有何影响？该问题包含两个子问题，即产出导向法在高中英语词汇教学中对被试的接受性词汇习得和产出性词汇习得有何影响？第二，产出导向法在高中英语词汇教学中对被试词汇学习态度有何影响？此问题包含三个子问题，即产出导向法在高中英语词汇教学中对被试词汇学习情感体验、认知水平和行为倾向有何影响？

研究发现：第一，基于产出导向法的高中英语词汇教学有助于提高被试的词汇能力，具体而言，对接受性词汇能力和控制性词汇能力均有显著性影响。在实验后实验班被试的能力测试结果有显著性提升，且其后测成绩相较于对照班被试也呈现出了显著性差异。第二，基于产出导向法的高中英语词汇教学对被试的英语词汇学习态度有显著性影响，包括对情感体验、认知水平和行为倾向的提升。在实验后实验班被试三个维度的词汇学习态度结果较实验前的结果有显著性提升，且其后测结果相较于对照班被试也呈现出了显著性差异。因此，产出导向法在高中英语词汇教学中可行且有效。

       基于此，研究者提出以下三点教学启示：第一，确保营造真实的交际场景情景，促进学生词汇能力发展。第二，设计多样的教学活动，提升学生课堂参与度。第三，采用师生共同评价方式，帮助学生明确学习效果。

Vocabulary is considered a central element in language learning, and the learners' lexical level directly correlates with the development of their overall English proficiency. Despite this, we are facing a series of issues in vocabulary teaching, such as predominantly focus on input, limited output, overly singular teaching methods, and students’ lack of enthusiasm for vocabulary learning. These problems result in learners cannot effectively improving their lexical competence and learning attitudes towards vocabulary learning, leading to suboptimal vocabulary teaching outcomes. Therefore, this study attempts to explore the application of Production-oriented Approach in high school English vocabulary teaching, examining their impact on the lexical competence and lexical learning attitudes of high school English learners. The aim is to address current issues in English vocabulary classrooms and provide a new perspective for research on vocabulary teaching in primary and secondary schools.

Grounded in Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, Swain’s Output Hypothesis, and Long’s Interaction Hypothesis. Research methods include educational experimentation, literature review, questionnaire survey, and interview. Updated Vocabulary Levels Test, Productive Vocabulary Levels Test, composition from school’s monthly exams, “English Vocabulary Learning Attitude Survey”, and semi-structured interviews serve as research tools. The researcher conducted three-months educational experiment on 99 Grade 1 students from Z High School in K City. The research addresses two main questions: Question 1: What is the impact of the Production-oriented Approach on the vocabulary proficiency of high school English learners? It includes two sub-questions: (1) How does the Production-oriented Approach affect subjects’ receptive lexical competence in high school English vocabulary teaching? (2) How does the Production-oriented Approach affect subjects’ productive lexical competence in high school English vocabulary teaching? Question 2: What is the impact of the Production-oriented Approach on learners’ attitudes towards vocabulary learning in high school English vocabulary teaching? It includes three sub-questions: (1) What is the impact of the Production-oriented Approach on the subjects’ emotional experiences in vocabulary learning? (2) What is the impact of the Production-oriented Approach on the subjects’ cognitive levels in vocabulary learning? (2) What is the impact of the Production-oriented Approach on the subjects’ behavioral tendencies in vocabulary learning?

The findings indicate that, firstly, the adoption of the Production-oriented Approach in high school English vocabulary teaching contributes to improving learners’ lexical competence, specifically, significantly impacting both receptive and controlled lexical competence. The great improvement in lexical competence sores of the subjects in Experimental group could be found after the end of the experiment. Moreover, the scores of the subjects in the experimental group were obviously higher than that of subjects in control group. Secondly, the Production-oriented Approach significantly influences learners' attitudes towards English vocabulary learning, including enhancements in emotional experiences, cognitive levels, and behavioral tendencies. According to the consequences of the questionnaire of vocabulary learning attitude and interview, it could be found that the subjects of the experimental group represented more active attitude in vocabulary learning at the end of the experiment. Also, there were significant distinctions in the reading attitude between experimental group and control group. Therefore, the adoption of the Production-oriented Approach in high school English vocabulary teaching is feasible and effective.

Based on the research results and conclusions, the researcher proposes three pedagogical insights: firstly, ensure the creation of authentic communication scenarios to promote students’ vocabulary development. Authentic communication situations are conducive to eliciting students’ emotional resonance and arousing their interest in English learning. Secondly, design diverse teaching activities to enhance students’ classroom participation. Last, adopt collaborative evaluation approach between teachers and students to help students clarify their learning outcomes.

[1]中华人民共和国教育部. 普通高中英语课程标准[S]. 北京：人民教育出版社，2020.

[2]马广惠. 英语词汇教学与研究[M]. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社, 2016.

[3]陶德清.学习态度的理论与研究[M]. 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2001.

[4]文秋芳. “师生合作评价”：“产出导向法”创设的新评价形式[J]. 外语界, 2016 (6): 37-43.

[5]顾琪璋. “产出导向法”与英语课堂人文素质教育效率提升研究[J]. 教育评论, 2016(6): 139-141.

[6]欧阳娟. 产出导向法在大学英语教学中的可行性分析[J]. 教育教学论坛, 2016 (30): 170-171.

[7]常小玲. 产出导向法的教材编写研究[J]. 现代外语, 2017, 40 (3): 359-368.

[8]文秋芳. “产出导向法”与对外汉语教学[J]. 世界汉语教学, 2018, 32(3): 387-400.

[9]邓海龙. “产出导向法”与“任务型教学法”比较：理念、假设与流程[J]. 外语教学, 2018, 39 (3): 55-59.

[10]毕争. “产出导向法”与“任务型教学法”比较：教学材料设计与使用[J]. 外语教学, 2019, 40 (4): 61-65.

[11]唐美华. “产出导向法”与“任务型教学法”比较：英语专业精读单元教学设计案例[J]. 外语教学, 2020, 41 (1): 65-69.

[12]吴玲琴. “产出导向法”研究文献综述[J]. 文化创新比较研究, 2018, 2(31): 128+130.

[13]杨莉芳. 产出导向法“驱动”环节的微课设计——以《新一代大学英语综合教程2》“艺术与自然”单元为例[J].中国外语教育, 2015, 8 (04): 3-9+105.

[14]曹巧珍.“产出导向法”之教师中介作用探析——以《新一代大学英语》第二册第四单元为例[J].中国外语教育, 2017, 10 (01):15-22+100.

[15]张伶俐.“产出导向法”的教学有效性研究[J].现代外语, 2017, 40 (03): 369-376+438.

[16]邱琳. 产出导向法语言促成环节过程化设计研究[J]. 现代外语, 2017, 40(03): 386-396.

[17]邱琳.“产出导向法”促成环节设计标准例析[J].外语教育研究前沿, 2020, 3(02): 12-19+90.

[18]孙曙光.“师生合作评价”课堂反思性实践研究[J]. 现代外语, 2017, 40(03): 397-406+439.

[19]文秋芳,孙曙光.“产出导向法”驱动场景设计要素例析[J]. 外语教育研究前沿, 2020, 3(02): 4-11+90.

[20]薛海燕. 基于“产出导向法”的高中英语读写教学[J]. 英语学习, 2020(03): 10-15.

[21]黄磊, 廖幽雅, 余静. “产出导向法”在初中英语课堂的实践[J]. 山西青年, 2021(01): 49-50.

[22]王宗华, 刘振前. 词汇教学发展述论[J]. 四川外语学院学报, 1994, (02): 88-93.

[23]罗立胜, 石晓佳. 语法翻译教学法的历史回顾、现状及展望[J]. 外语教学, 2004, (01): 84-86.

[24]陆习强. 现代英语词汇学[M]. 上海：上海外语出版社, 1983.

[25]束定芳. 略论外语词汇教学的基本特点与基本原则[J]. 外语研究, 1995, 1: 52-58.

[26]王少杰. 基于产出导向法的大学英语词汇教学模式创新研究[J]. 才智, 2019 (30): 75.

[27]周远. 基于“产出导向法”的民办高校英语类专业写作词汇教学改革探索[J]. 湖北开放职业学院学报, 2020, 33(09): 171-173.

[28]张煜, 张洋,陈颖.高职英语词汇混合式教学——产出导向法视阈下的教学设计与实践[J].昆明冶金高等专科学校学报, 2020, 36(02): 13-18+30.

[29]张丽君, 杜敏.产出导向法对学生英语词汇搭配习得的影响[J]. 海外英语, 2022(14): 72-74+98.

[30]文秋芳. 输出驱动假设和问题启动假设——论述新世纪英语专业课程设置与教学方法的改革[G]. 2007, 首届全国英语专业院系主任高级论坛论文, 上海, 2007年5月

[31]文秋芳.大学英语教学中通用英语与专用英语之争:问题与对策[J]. 外语与外语教学,2014, 274(01):1-8.

[32]文秋芳. 构建“产出导向法”理论体系[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2015,47(04):547-558+640.

[33]李明, 曹军. 产出导向法指导下的中学词汇教学研究——基于英语核心素养视角[J]. 海外英语,2018 (10): 17-18.

[34]吴明隆. 结构方程模型：AMOS的操作与应用[M]. 重庆：重庆大学出版社, 2010:224.

[35]中华人民共和国教育部. 普通高中英语课程标准[S]. 北京：人民教育出版社, 2020: 21-22.

[36]张红涛,王二平. 态度与行为关系研究现状及发展趋势[J].心理科学进展, ,2007, 15(1):163-168.

[37]张志红,耿兰芳. 学习态度对大学生学习成绩影响的实证分析[J].中国大学教学, 2009, (10):87-89.

[38]沈德立，李洪玉，庄素芳，杜辉，胡建俊，张维.中小学生的智力、学习态度与其数学学业成就的相关性研究[J]. 天津师范大学学报(基础教育版), 2000(02): 1-5.

[39]韩宝成, 许宏晨.中学生英语学习态度动机调查问卷的信效度分析[J]. 河北师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2010, 12(10):69-74.

[40]马晓路.“产出导向法”教学中驱动环节的创新设计与实施[J].外语教育研究, 2023, 11(04): 1-7.

[41]梁砾文.“产出导向法”在博士研究生学术英语演讲教学中的应用——以促成环节为例[J].外语教育研究前沿, 2023, 6(02): 11-18+93.

[42]高雅. 产出导向法在高中英语词汇教学中的应用研究[D]. 延安大学, 2023.

[43]罗碧翠. 产出导向法对初中生英语写作能力影响的实验研究[D]. 广州大学, 2020.

[44]丁艳艳. 产出导向法在初中英语词汇教学中的应用研究[D].石河子大学,2022.

[45]王楠. 产出导向法在高中英语词汇教学中的实证研究[D].新疆师范大学,2023.

[46]Krashen S. Principles and practice in SLA[M]. Oxford: Pergamon, 1982.

[47]Swain M. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development[M]. MA: Newbury House, 1985: 235-253.

[48]Johnson K. Language teaching and skill learning[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.

[49]Skehan P. A cognitive approach to language larning[M]. 上海：上海外语教育出版社，1998: 16-59.

[50]Lewis, M. The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and the Way Forward[M]. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications, 1993.

[51]Lewis, M. Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into practice[M]. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications, 1997:15.

[52]Ur, P. A course in language teaching: Practice and theory[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

[53]Carter, R. Vocabulary -Applied Linguistic Perspectives (2nd ed.)[M]. London: Routledge, 1998.

[54]Hatch, E. & Brown, C. Vocabulary semantics and language education[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.

[55]Nation, I. S. P. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary in Another Language[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1990: 243-244.

[56]Zimmerman, C. B. Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: Historical trends in second language vocabulary instruction[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

[57]Brown, H. D. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching[M]. London: Longman Press, 2000.

[58]Wilkins, D. A. Linguistics in Language Teaching[M]. London: Edward Arnold, 1972.

[59]Twaddell, W. F. In readings on English as a Second Language[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

[60]Nation, P. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary[M]. Massachusetts: House, 1990.

[61]Schmitt, N. Vocabulary in language teaching[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

[62]Nation, I. S. P. Learning vocabulary in another language[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

[63]Krashen, S. The Input Hypothesis: Issue and Implication[M]. London: Longman, 1985.

[64]Nation, I. S. P. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

[65]Read, J. Assessing Vocabulary [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000: 200-201.

[66]Dellar, H.&D. Hocking. Innovation [M]. Hove: Language Teaching Publishers, 2000.

[67]Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994: 199-200.

[68]Allport, G. H. Handbook of Social Psychology [M]. Worchester, MA: Clark University Press, 1935.

[69]White, L. Against Comprehensible Input: The Input Hypothesis and the Development of Second-Language Competence[J]. Applied Linguistics, 1987(8): 95-110.

[70]Gass, S. Integrating Research Areas: A Framework for Second Language Studies[J]. Applied Linguistics, 1988(9): 198-217.

[71]Vanpatten, B. & Cadierno, T. Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction[J]. The Modern Language Journal, 1993, 77(1): 45-57.

[72]Isik, A. The Role of Input in Second Language Acquisition: More Comprehensible Input Supported by Grammar Instruction or More Grammar Instruction?[J]. I.T.L. Review of Applied Linguistics, 2000, 129-130: 225-274.

[73]Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. Y. Error correction, revision, and learning[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2008, 17(4): 292-305.

[74]Swain M. The output hypothesis and beyond: Meditating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J.P. (ed.). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

[75]De bot, K. The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis[J]. Language Learning, 1996, 46(3): 529-555

[76]Skehan P. A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction[J]. Applied Linguistics, 1996(1): 38-62.

[77]Pica, T., Halliday, L., Lewis, N. & Morgenthaler, L. Comprehensible Output as an Outcome of Linguistic Demands on the Learner[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1989(11):63-90.

[78]Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent French immersion students working together[J]. The Modern Language Journal, 1998, 82(3): 320-337.

[79]Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M. & Fearnow, S. Testing the output hypothesis: effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition[J]. Studies in Second Language, 1999, 21(3): 421-452.

[80]Erlam R. Evaluating the Relative Effectiveness of Structured-Input and Output-Based Instruction in Foreign Language Learning [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2003, 25: 559-582.

[81]Peker, H. & Arslan, Z. A critique of Merrill Swain’s output hypothesis in language learningand teaching[J]. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 2020, 16 (1): 99-108.

[82]Long M. H. Native speaker/ non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input[J]. Applied Linguistics, 1983(4): 126-141.

[83]Long M. H. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition[C]. New York: Academic Press, 1966: 413-468.

[84]Pica, T., Halliday, L., Lewis, N. & Morgenthaler, L. Comprehensible Output as an Outcome of Linguistic Demands on the Learner[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1989(11):63-90.

[85]Gass, S., and Varonis, E. Input, interaction and second language production[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1994, 16: 283-302.

[86]Ellis, Rod. The Production-Oriented Approach: Moving Forward[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2017, 40(04): 454-458.

[87]Alister, Cumming. Design and Directions for Research[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2017, 40(04): 45 9-463.

[88]Liu, Guobing. Zhang, Yafei. The Production-oriented Approach to Teaching English Writing in Chinese Junior High Schools[J]. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2019: 10(6): 1288-1297.

[89]Laufer, B., & Nation, P. A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability[J]. Language Testing, 1999, 16(1): 36–55.

[90]Natsir, M. & Sanjaya, D. Grammar Translation Method (GTM) versus Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) :A Review of Literature[J]. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 2014, 2(1): 58-62.

[91]Richards, J. C. The role of vocabulary teaching[J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1976, 10(1):77-89.

[92]Lalande, J. F, Gairns, R. & Redman, S. Working with Words. A Guide to Teaching and Learning Vocabulary[J]. Modern Language Journal, 1986, 71(4): 435.

[93]Nagy, W. On the role of context in first and second language vocabulary learning[A]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2002.

[94]Omid, R. & Salman D. An Investigation of the Possible Effects of Favored Contexts in Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition[J]. English Language Teaching, 2011, 4 (4): 97.

[95]Xiaodong Zhu, Zhuo Zhu. Research on English Vocabulary Teaching in Senior High Schools Based on the Production-Oriented Approach[J]. Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, 2020: 3 (7): 168-176.

[96]Swain, M. Three functions of output in second language learning[A]. In B. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.). Principles and practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honor of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: OUP, 1995.

[97]Swain, M .Output Hypothesis: Its History and Its Future[J].外语教学与研究,2008(01):45-50+81.

[98]Long, M. H. Input, interaction, and second-language acquisition[J]. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2010, 379: 259-278.

[99]Long, M. H. Native speaker/ non-native speaker in the second language classroom[J]. Applied Linguistics, 1983(4): 126-141.

[100]Long, M. H. Native speaker/ non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input[J]. Applied Linguistics, 1983(4): 126-141.

[101]Pica, T., Young, R. & Doughty, C. The impact of interaction on comprehension[J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1987, 21(4): 737-758.

[102]Wen, Qiufang. Production-oriented approach to teaching Chinese adult learners[R]. A keynote speech at the 7th International Conference on English Language Teaching in China. 2014, October 23-26. Nanjing, China.

[103]Henriksen, B. Three dimensions of vocabulary development [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1999, 21(2): 303-318.

[104]Henriksen, B. Three dimensions of vocabulary development [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1999, 21(3): 303-317.

[105]Qian, D. D. Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading performance: An assessment perspective[J]. Language learning, 2002: 52(3): 513-536.

[106]Dale, E. Vocabulary measurement: Technique and major findings [J]. Elementary English, 1965, 42: 895-901+948.

[107]Wesche, M, B., & Paeibakht, T. S. Assessing Second Language Vocabulary Knowledge: Depth versus Breadth[J]. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 1996, 53(1): 13-40.

[108]Cronbach, L, J. An Analysis of Techniques for Diagnostic Vocabulary Testing[J]. The Journal of Educational Research, 1942, 36(3): 206-217.

[109]Richards, J. C. The role of vocabulary teaching[J]. TESOL quarterly, 1976, 10(1): 77-89.

[110]Meara, P. The classical research in L2 vocabulary acquisition. In Anderman, G. & M. Rogers (eds.). Words, Words, Words: The Translator and the Language Learner [C]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 1996, 27-40.

[111]Meara, P. The third dimension of lexical competence[R]. Paper presented at the 11th AILA Congress. Jyvaskyla, Finland, 1996.Brown T A. confirmatory Factory Analysis for Applied Research[M]. New York: The Guilford Press, 2006: 49.

[112]Dimension of lexical competence[R]. Paper presented at the 11th AILA Congress, Jyvaskyla, Finland, 1996.

[113]Laufer, B. The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different?[J]. Applied linguistics, 1998, 19(2): 255-271.

[114]Schmitt, N. Understanding vocabulary acquisition, instruction, and assessment: A research agenda[J]. Language Teaching, 2019, 52(2): 261-274.

[115]Nation, I. S. P. Testing and teaching vocabulary [J]. Guidelines, 1983, 5(1): 12-25.

[116]Meara, P. The dimensions of lexicon and the teaching of vocabulary. In G Brown, K Malmkjaer and J Williams (eds.) Performance and competence in second language acquisition[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1996, 35-¬53.

[117]Kremmel B, Schmitt N. Vocabulary Levels Test[C]. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. J. I. Liontas, T. International Association and M. DelliCarpini (eds.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2017: 1-7.

[118]Webb S, Sasao Y, Ballance O. The updated Vocabulary Levels Test: Developing and validating two new forms of the VLT[J]. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2017, 168(1): 33-69.

[119]Laufer B, Nation P. A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability[J]. Language testing, 1999, 16(1): 33-51.

[120]Laufer, B. Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners really acquire most vocabulary by reading? [J]. Canadian Modern Language Review, 2003, 59 (4): 565-585.

[121]Read, J. Assessing vocabulary [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

[122]Fakeye, D. Students’ Personal Variables as Corelates of Academic Achievement in English as a Second Language in Nigeria [J]. Journal of Social Sciences, 2010, 22 (3): 205-211.

[123]Rosenberg, M.J., Hovland, C.I. Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitude[C]. In C.I. Hovland and M.J. Rosenberg (eds.), Attitudes, organization and change. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 1960: 1-14.

[124]Nation, I. S. P. Testing and teaching vocabulary [J]. Guidelines, 1983, 5(1): 12-25.

[125]Webb S, Sasao Y, Ballance O. The updated Vocabulary Levels Test: Developing and validating two new forms of the VLT[J]. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2017, 168(1): 33-69.

[126]Laufer B, Nation P. A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability[J]. Language testing, 1999, 16(1): 33-51.