Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation, Cognition & Behavior
Vol. 1:1 (2018) ► pp.168–193

The development of the TPR-DB as Grounded Theory Method

| Renmin University of China
| University of Mainz, Germany

Initial versions of the translation process research database (TPR-DB), were released around 2011 in an attempt to integrate translation process data from several until then individually collected and scattered translation research projects. While the earlier individual studies had a clear focus on quantitative assessment of well-defined research questions on cognitive processes in human translation production, the integration of the data into the TPR-DB allowed for broader qualitative and exploratory research which has led to new codes, categories and research themes. In a constant effort to develop and refine the emerging concepts and categories and to validate the developing theories, the TPR-DB has been extended with further translation studies in different languages and translation modes. In this respect, it shares many features with Grounded Theory Method. This method was discovered in 1967 and used in qualitative research in social science ad many other research areas. We analyze the TPR-DB development as a Grounded Theory Method. [1] 1

Keywords: postediting and revision, translation, longitudinal studies, introspection, grounded theory method, monitor model, process model
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The grounded theory method
    • 2.1Basics
    • 2.2GTM and the TPR-DB
  • 3.Theoretical saturation: The monitor model
  • 4.Axial coding: Translation duration and translation quality
  • 5.Open coding: Activity Units
  • 6.A formal translation processes model
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 2 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00008.car
References
Alves, Fabio, Karina Sarto Szpak, José Luiz Gonçalves, Kyoko Sekino, Marceli Aquino, Rodrigo Araújo e Castro, Arlene Koglin, Norma B. de Lima Fonseca & Bartolomé Mesa Lao
2016 “Investigating Cognitive Effort in Postediting: A Relevance-Theoretical Approach.” In Eyetracking and Applied Linguistics. Edited by S. Hansen-Schirra and S. Grucza, 109–142. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alves, Fábio, José Luiz V. R. Gonçalves, and Karina S. Szpak
2014 “Some Thoughts about the Conceptual / Procedural Distinction in Translation: A Key-Logging and Eye-Tracking Study of Processing Effort.” In Minding Translation. Edited by R. Muñoz, 151–175. MonTI, special issue 1. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
Baddeley, Alan D.
2007 Working Memory, Thought, and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bangalore, Srinivas, Bergljot Behrens, Michael Carl, Maheshwar Ghankot, Arndt Heilmann, Jean Nitzke, Moritz J. Schaeffer, and Annegret Sturm
2016 “Syntactic Variance and Priming Effects in Translation.” In New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Edited by M. Carl, S. Bangalore, and M. Schaeffer, 211–38. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birks, Melanie and Jane Mills
2011 Grounded Theory: A practical guide. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
2002 Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Martin Kay
2011 “Gazing and Typing Activities during Translation: A Comparative Study of Translation Units of Professional and Student Translators.” Meta 56 (4): 952–75. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, Barbara Dragsted, and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen
2011 “A Taxonomy of Human Translation Styles.” Translation Journal 16 (2). Available at [URL]
Carl, Michael, and Barbara Dragsted
2012 “Inside the Monitor Model: Processes of Default and Challenged Translation Production.” TC3, Translation: Computation, Corpora, Cognition, 2 (1): 127–145.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, Moritz J. Schaeffer, and Srinivas Bangalore
2016 “The CRITT Translation Process Research Database.” In New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB edited by M. Carl, S. Bangalore, and M. J. Schaeffer, Chapter 2 (pp. 13–54). Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Moritz J. Schaeffer
2017 “Why Translation Is Difficult : A Corpus-Based Study of Non-Literality in Post-Editing and From-Scratch Translation.” Hermes—Journal of Language and Communication Studies 561: 43–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael
In print. “Literal Translation, Default Translation and the Similarity of Language Systems.” Target
Charmaz, Kathy
2006 Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Diamond, Bruce J. and Gregory M. Shreve
2017 “Deliberate Practice and Neurocognitive Optimization of Translation Expertise.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited by J. W. Schwieter and A. Ferreira. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara, and Michael Carl
2013 “Towards a Classification of Translation Styles Based on Eye-Tracking and Keylogging Data.” Journal of Writing Research 5 (1): 133–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders
2000 “Expertise in Interpreting: An Expert-Performance Perspective.” Interpreting 5 (2): 189–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gasson, Susan
2004 “Rigor in Grounded Theory Research: An Interpretive Perspective on Generating Theory from Qualitative Field Studies.” In The Handbook of Information Systems Research. Edited by M. Whitman and A. Woszczynsk. 79–102. IGI Global. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glaser, Barney G.
2008 “Qualitative and Quantitative Research.” Gounded Theory Review 7 (2). Available at [URL] Originally published in Glaser. Barmey G. 2003. The Grounded Theory Perspective II: Description’s remodeling of grounded theory methodology, chapter 7 (99–113). Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
1978 Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss
1967 The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Hayes, John R., and Linda Flower
1980 “Identifying the organization of writing processes.” In Cognitive Processes in Writing. Edited by L. Gregg and E. R. Steinberg, 3–30. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Heist, Brian
2012 From Thematic Analysis to Grounded Theory. Lecture notes available at [URL]
Hood, Jane
2007 “Orthodoxy vs. Power: The defining Traits of Grounded Theory.” In The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. Edited by A. Bryant and K. Charmaz, 151–164. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hvelplund, Kristian Tangsgaard
2016 “Cognitive Efficiency in Translation.” In Reembedding Translation Process Research. Edited by R. Muñoz, 149–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Allocation of Cognitive Resources in Translation: An Eye-tracking and Key-logging Study (PhD Series, No. 10.2011). Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Hönig, Hans G.
1991 “Holmes’ ‘Mapping Theory’ and the Landscape of Mental Translation Processes.” In Translation Studies: The State of the Art. Edited by K. van Leuven-Zwart and T. Naajkens, 77–89. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
2002 “Orientation, Segmentation, and Revision in Translation.” In Empirical Translation Studies: Process and Product. Edited by G. Hansen, 9–20. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Jensen, Kristian T. H.
2009 “Indicators of Text Complexity.” In Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research. Edited by S. Göpferich, A. L. Jakobsen, and I. M. Mees, 61–80. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
2011 “Distribution of Attention Between Source text and Target Text During Translation.” In Cognitive explorations of translation. Edited by S. O’Brien, 215–236. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Kelle, Udo
2007 “The Development of Categories: Different Approaches in Grounded Theory.” In The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. Edited by A. Bryant and K. Charmaz, 191–213. London: Sage DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krings, Hans Peter
1986 Was in Den Köpfen von Übersetzern Vorgeht: Eine Empirische Untersuchung Zur Struktur Des Übersetzungsprozesses an Fortgeschrittenen Französischlernern. Tübingen: Günter Narr.Google Scholar
Kumpulainen, Minna
2015 “On the Operationalisation of ‘Pauses’ in Translation Process Research.” Translation and Interpreting 7 (1): 47–58. Google Scholar
Lacruz, Isabel, Gregory M. Shreve, and Erik Angelone
2012 “Average Pause Ratio as an Indicator of Cognitive Effort in Post-Editing: A Case Study.” AMTA 2012 Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice (WPTP 2012), 21–30.Google Scholar
Martínez Gómez, Pascual, Akiko Aizawa, and Michael Carl
2014 “Characterization of Human Translation for Different Levels of Expertise.” The 20th Annual Conference Proceedings of the Association for Natural Language Processing of Japan, 153–156.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon
2006 “Pauses as Indicators of Cognitive Effort in Post-Editing Machine Translation Output.” Across Languages and Cultures 7 (1): 1–21. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles Sanders
1929 “Guessing.” Hound and Horn, 2 (3): 267–282.Google Scholar
Rabiner, Lawrence R.
1989 “A tutorial on Hidden Markov Models and selected applications in speech recognition.” Proceedings of the IEEE. 77 (2): 257–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayner, Keith
1998 “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research.” Psychological Bulletin 124 (3): 372–422. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Reichertz, Jo
2007 “Abduction: The Logic of Discovery of Grounded Theory.” In The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. Edited by B. Anthony and K. Charmaz, 214–228. Available at [URL] doi:  DOI logo
Risku, Hanna
2014 “Translation Process Research As Interaction Research: From Mental To Socio-Cognitive Processes.” In Minding Translation. Edited by R. Muñoz, 331–353. MonTI, special issue 1. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, and Michael Carl
2013 “Shared Representations and the Translation Process: A Recursive Model.” Translation and Interpreting Studies, 8 (2): 169–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz J., and Michael Carl
2014 “Measuring the Cognitive Effort of Literal Translation Processes.” In Proceedings of the Workshop on Humans and Computer-Assisted Translation (HaCaT). Edited by U. Germann, M. Carl, P. Koehn, G. Sanchis Trilles, F. Casacuberta, R. Hill, and S. O’Brien, 29–37. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz J., Michael Carl, and Isabel Lacruz
2016 “Measuring Cognitive Translation Effort with Activity Units.” Baltic Journal of Modern Computing 4 (2): 331–345.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, and Michael Carl
2017 “A Minimal Cognitive Model for Translating and Post-Editing.” In Proceedings of MT Summit XVI. Edited by S. Kurohashi and P. Fung, vol. 11, 144–55. Japan: International Association for Machine Translation.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz J., and Michael Carl
2017. “Language Processing and Translation.” In Empirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting Edited by S. Hansen-Schirra, O. Čulo, S. Hofmann, and B. Meyer Berlin Language Science Press DOI logo
Strauss, Anselm L. and Juliet M. Corbin
1990 Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage.Google Scholar
1998 Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
2005 “The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research.” Meta 50 (2): 405–14. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
2004 “Probabilistic Explanations in Translation Studies: Welcome as They Are, Would They Qualify as Universals?” In Translation Universals: Do They exist?. Edited by A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki, 15–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Vieira, Lucas Nunes
2016 “Cognitive Effort in Post-Editing of Machine Translation: Evidence from Eye Movements, Subjective Ratings, and Think-Aloud Protocols.” PhD dissertation, Newcastle University. Available at [URL]
Walsham, Geoff
1993 Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Halverson, Sandra L.
2019. ‘Default’ translation. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 2:2 ► pp. 187 ff. DOI logo
Lu, Sheng, Michael Carl, Xinyue Yao & Wenchao Su
2020. Predicting translation behaviorsby using Hidden Markov Model. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 3:1 ► pp. 76 ff. DOI logo
Schaeffer, Moritz, Jean Nitzke & Silvia Hansen-Schirra
2019. Predictive Turn in Translation Studies: Review and Prospects. In Handbook of the Changing World Language Map, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Schaeffer, Moritz, Jean Nitzke & Silvia Hansen-Schirra
2020. Predictive Turn in Translation Studies: Review and Prospects. In Handbook of the Changing World Language Map, ► pp. 3939 ff. DOI logo
Shih, Claire Y.
2023. Navigating the Web, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.