大家好 因近日在讀一篇文章 其中有幾句話怎麼翻都不順 所以想請教大家 1) Nursing has inherited a "legacy of positivism", which promotes objectivity and reductionism and which excludes subjective meaning and the personal from the research process. [自己的翻譯] 護理繼承了"實證主義的遺產" -提昇客觀與簡化論及排除研究過程中主觀意義與個人形式。 [有疑問的點] "reductionism"我查到的是指"簡化論;還原論(-ism)" 可是這樣和客觀(objectivity)在and的左右就不對等了 還是我解讀錯誤? 2) Hence nursing can be considered as a full and legitimate response to birth, death, health and illness, not limited by or endeavouring to control the diversity of other approaches to such human experiences. [自己的翻譯] 於是護理可以考慮對於出生、死亡、健康與疾病做恰當及合理的反應， 不受制於或努力控制此類人們經驗接近的其他差異 [有疑問的點] "...not limited by or endeavouring to control the diversity of other approaches to such human experiences." 我翻為"不受制於或努力控制此類人們經驗接近的其他差異" 可是怎麼看都覺得怪怪的... 3) this places nurses in direct competition with medics, whose educational focus is located in scientific clinical practice, not in caring as is the case with nursing. Resulting competitiveness for excellence in scientific evidence-based clinical practice provides nurses with a setting in which to reconfirm a position at a lower point in a hierarchy of clinical achievement. [自己的翻譯] 這置護理人員於與醫學生的直接競爭中， 這些醫學生的教育焦點侷限在科學的臨床實務，不是如同護理在照護上。 導致以科學實證為基礎的臨床實務有優良的競爭力提供護理人員環境臨床成就 的階級地位上較低位置的再確認。 [有疑問的點] (1) "competitiveness for excellence"-->"優良的競爭力"? (2) "setting"-->在這裡我採用"環境"的意思 可是整句怎麼看怎麼怪....= =a 4)In part this has been due to the powerful influence of medical hegemony, which has defined the nature of legitimate knowledge [自己的翻譯] 在某種程度上這已經導致醫學領導權被定義為正當合法知識的有力的影響。 謝謝大家耐心的看完與指正 --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.20.149.142