[雙語翻譯]--家暴外文翻譯--生活在家庭暴力之下的兒童是如何被強制性控制手段傷害并奮起反抗的（節(jié)選）

1、3000 單詞， 單詞，17000 英文字符， 英文字符，6100 漢字 漢字出處： 出處：Katz E. Beyond the Physical Incident Model: How Children Living with Domestic Violence are Harmed By and Resist Regimes of Coercive Control[J]. Child Abuse Review, 2016, 25(

2、1):46–59.Beyond the Physical Incident Model: How Children Living with Domestic Violence are Harmed By and Resist Regimes of Coercive ControlEmma KatzThis article begins to build knowledge of how non-violent coercive cont

3、rolling behaviours can be central to children’s experiences of domestic violence. It considers how children can be harmed by, and resist, coercive controlling tactics perpetrated by their father/father-figure against

4、their mother. Already, we know much about how women/mothers experience non-physical forms of domestic violence, including psychological/emotional/verbal and financial abuse, isolation and monitoring of their acti

5、vities. However, this knowledge has not yet reached most research on children and domestic violence, which tends to focus on children’s exposure to physical violence. In this qualitative study, 30 participants from the

6、 UK, 15 mothers and 15 of their children (most aged 10–14) who had separated from domestic violence perpetrators, participated in semi-structured interviews. All participants were living in the community. Using the ‘F

7、ramework’ approach to thematically analyse the data, findings indicated that perpetrators’/fathers’ coercive control often prevented children from spending time with their mothers and grandparents, visiting other child

8、ren’s houses and engaging in extra-curricular activities. These non-violent behaviours from perpetrators/fathers placed children in isolated, disempowering and constrained worlds which could hamper children’s resilien

9、ce and development and contribute to emotional/behavioural problems. Implications for practice and the need to empower children in these circumstances are discussed.episodes of physical violence (a view that is termed t

10、he ‘physical incident’ model in this article), and, as Stark (2009, p. 293) states, ‘virtually all domestic violence research and intervention is predicated on this model’. The physical incident model is harmful becaus

11、e it ignores the many non-physical forms of abuse inherent to coercive control, as well as the ongoing nature of the domestic violence. This can lead to false understandings of what victims/survivors are experiencing

12、and how it is affecting them, as well as misunderstandings of the levels of risk posed by perpetrators (Stark, 2007). The concept of coercive control provides a more accurate framework for understanding control-based f

13、orms of domestic violence, and enables fuller understandings of victims’/survivors’ lived experiences and needs to be developed.Coercive control is increasingly recognised as being distinct from what Johnson (2008) ca

14、lls ‘situational couple violence’; that is, violence sparked by situational factors and where control is not a primary motivation (Myhill, 2015). Coercive control is a particularly harmful form of domestic violence (Le

15、hmann et al., 2012), and is usually perpetrated by men (Myhill, 2015; Hester, 2009). It is known to involve a range of tactics intended to intimidate, humiliate, degrade, exploit, isolate and control (Stark, 2009). The

16、se include verbal, emotional and psychological abuse, control of time, space and movement, continual monitoring, stalking, physical violence, intimidation and threats of violence against the victim/survivor, their lov

17、ed ones and property, rape, sexual coerciveness and control of pregnancy, financial abuse and the denial of resources, and isolation from sources of support (Matheson et al., 2015; Sanders, 2015; Thomas et

18、al., 2014; Stark, 2007, 2012; Lehmann et al., 2012; Miller et al., 2010).Although some perpetrators use physical violence frequently, others use little or none; instead, preferring to maintain dominance over their pa

19、rtner through more insidious methods such as psychological abuse and the control of time, movement and activities (Westmarland and Kelly, 2013). Perpetrators of coercive control engage in minimising, denying and blamin

20、g others for their abusive behaviours (Lehmann et al., 2012), may claim to be the real victim in the relationship (Bancroft et al., 2012; Morris, 2009) and can present themselves as charming and heroic (Morris, 2009;

21、Stark, 2007). Rather than arising from conflict or stress, coercive control is used to suppress potential conflicts or challenges to perpetrators’ authority (Stark, 2007). The range of abuses involved mean that victims

22、/survivors tend to experience control-based domestic violence as ongoing and cumulative rather than as episodic (Morris, 2009; Stark, 2007, 2009).Coercive control can have devastating impacts on victims/survivors. In a

23、ddition to its well- documented effects on physical and mental health (Dillon et al., 2013), Westmarland and Kelly (2013) highlight that coercive control limits victims’/survivors’ ‘space for action’, that is their fre

24、edom to say and do things and to meet their own needs without worry or fear. As perpetrators microregulate their everyday behaviours (Stark, 2007), victims’/survivors’ options, choices and ability to decide for themsel