1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Translation, Cognition & Behavior
  4. Volume 1, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-5277
  • E-ISSN: 2542-5285
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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 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 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 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.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00008.car
2018-03-02
2024-04-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00008.car
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. 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.” InEyetracking and Applied Linguistics. Edited by S. Hansen-Schirra and S. Grucza , 109–142. Berlin: Language Science Press. doi:10.17169/langsci.b108.296
     https://doi.org/10.17169/langsci.b108.296 [Google Scholar]
  2. 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.” InMinding Translation. Edited by R. Muñoz , 151–175. MonTI, special issue 1. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Baddeley, Alan D.
    2007 Working Memory, Thought, and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528012.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528012.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. 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.” InNew 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:10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20358‑4_10
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4_10 [Google Scholar]
  5. Birks, Melanie and Jane Mills
    2011 Grounded Theory: A practical guide. London: Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Blakemore, Diane
    2002 Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511486456
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  7. Carl, Michael , and Martin Kay
    2011 “Gazing and Typing Activities during Translation: A Comparative Study of Translation Units of Professional and Student Translators.” Meta56 (4): 952–75. doi:10.7202/1011262ar.
     https://doi.org/10.7202/1011262ar [Google Scholar]
  8. Carl, Michael , Barbara Dragsted , and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen
    2011 “A Taxonomy of Human Translation Styles.” Translation Journal16 (2). Available attranslationjournal.net/journal/56taxonomy.htm
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 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]
  10. Carl, Michael , Moritz J. Schaeffer , and Srinivas Bangalore
    2016 “The CRITT Translation Process Research Database.” InNew Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DBedited by M. Carl , S. Bangalore , and M. J. Schaeffer , Chapter 2 (pp.13–54). Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20358‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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 Studies56: 43–57. doi: 10.7146/hjlcb.v0i56.97201
     https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v0i56.97201 [Google Scholar]
  12. Carl, Michael
    . In print. “Literal Translation, Default Translation and the Similarity of Language Systems.” Target
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Charmaz, Kathy
    2006 Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Diamond, Bruce J. and Gregory M. Shreve
    2017 “Deliberate Practice and Neurocognitive Optimization of Translation Expertise.” InThe Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited by J. W. Schwieter and A. Ferreira . Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781119241485.ch26.
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch26 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dragsted, Barbara , and Michael Carl
    2013 “Towards a Classification of Translation Styles Based on Eye-Tracking and Keylogging Data.” Journal of Writing Research5 (1): 133–158. doi:10.17239/jowr‑2013.05.01.6
     https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2013.05.01.6 [Google Scholar]
  16. Ericsson, K. Anders
    2000 “Expertise in Interpreting: An Expert-Performance Perspective.” Interpreting5 (2): 189–222. doi:10.1075/intp.5.2.08eri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.5.2.08eri [Google Scholar]
  17. Gasson, Susan
    2004 “Rigor in Grounded Theory Research: An Interpretive Perspective on Generating Theory from Qualitative Field Studies.” InThe Handbook of Information Systems Research. Edited by M. Whitman and A. Woszczynsk . 79–102. IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978‑1‑59140‑144‑5.ch006
     https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-144-5.ch006 [Google Scholar]
  18. Glaser, Barney G.
    2008 “Qualitative and Quantitative Research.” Gounded Theory Review 7 (2). Available atgroundedtheoryreview.com/2008/06/30/1052/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.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 1978 Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss
    1967 The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Hayes, John R. , and Linda Flower
    1980 “Identifying the organization of writing processes.” InCognitive Processes in Writing. Edited by L. Gregg and E. R. Steinberg , 3–30. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Heist, Brian
    2012 From Thematic Analysis to Grounded Theory. Lecture notes available atwww.mermaid.pitt.edu/documents/MERMAID%20GrndedThry%20talk%20HEIST.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Hood, Jane
    2007 “Orthodoxy vs. Power: The defining Traits of Grounded Theory.” InThe SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. Edited by A. Bryant and K. Charmaz , 151–164. London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781848607941.n7
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941.n7 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hvelplund, Kristian Tangsgaard
    2016 “Cognitive Efficiency in Translation.” InReembedding Translation Process Research. Edited by R. Muñoz , 149–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.128.08hve
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.128.08hve [Google Scholar]
  25. 2011 Allocation of Cognitive Resources in Translation: An Eye-tracking and Key-logging Study (PhD Series, No. 10.2011). Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Hönig, Hans G.
    1991 “Holmes’ ‘Mapping Theory’ and the Landscape of Mental Translation Processes.” InTranslation Studies: The State of the Art. Edited by K. van Leuven-Zwart and T. Naajkens , 77–89. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Immonen, Sini
    2006 “Translation as a Writing Process: Pauses in Translation versus Monolingual Text Production.” Target18 (2): 313–336. doi:10.1075/target.18.2.06imm.
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18.2.06imm [Google Scholar]
  28. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
    2002 “Orientation, Segmentation, and Revision in Translation.” InEmpirical Translation Studies: Process and Product. Edited by G. Hansen , 9–20. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Jensen, Kristian T. H.
    2009 “Indicators of Text Complexity.” InBehind 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]
  30. 2011 “Distribution of Attention Between Source text and Target Text During Translation.” InCognitive explorations of translation. Edited by S. O’Brien , 215–236. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Kelle, Udo
    2007 “The Development of Categories: Different Approaches in Grounded Theory.” InThe SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. Edited by A. Bryant and K. Charmaz , 191–213. London: Sage doi: 10.4135/9781848607941.n9
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941.n9 [Google Scholar]
  32. 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]
  33. Kumpulainen, Minna
    2015 “On the Operationalisation of ‘Pauses’ in Translation Process Research.” Translation and Interpreting7 (1): 47–58. doi:ti.106201.2015.a04.
     https://doi.org/ti.106201.2015.a04 [Google Scholar]
  34. 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]
  35. 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]
  36. O’Brien, Sharon
    2006 “Pauses as Indicators of Cognitive Effort in Post-Editing Machine Translation Output.” Across Languages and Cultures7 (1): 1–21. doi:10.1556/Acr.7.2006.1.1.
     https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.7.2006.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  37. Peirce, Charles Sanders
    1929 “Guessing.” Hound and Horn, 2 (3): 267–282.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 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:10.1109/5.18626
     https://doi.org/10.1109/5.18626 [Google Scholar]
  39. Rayner, Keith
    1998 “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research.” Psychological Bulletin124 (3): 372–422. doi:10.1037/0033‑2909.124.3.372.
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 [Google Scholar]
  40. Reichertz, Jo
    2007 “Abduction: The Logic of Discovery of Grounded Theory.” InThe SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. Edited by B. Anthony and K. Charmaz , 214–228. Available atwww.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1412/2902 doi: 10.4135/9781848607941.n10
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941.n10 [Google Scholar]
  41. Risku, Hanna
    2014 “Translation Process Research As Interaction Research: From Mental To Socio-Cognitive Processes.” InMinding Translation. Edited by R. Muñoz , 331–353. MonTI, special issue 1. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Schaeffer, Moritz , and Michael Carl
    2013 “Shared Representations and the Translation Process: A Recursive Model.” Translation and Interpreting Studies, 8 (2): 169–190. doi:10.1075/tis.8.2.03sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.8.2.03sch [Google Scholar]
  43. Schaeffer, Moritz J. , and Michael Carl
    2014 “Measuring the Cognitive Effort of Literal Translation Processes.” InProceedings 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]
  44. Schaeffer, Moritz J. , Michael Carl , and Isabel Lacruz
    2016 “Measuring Cognitive Translation Effort with Activity Units.” Baltic Journal of Modern Computing4 (2): 331–345.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Schaeffer, Moritz , and Michael Carl
    2017 “A Minimal Cognitive Model for Translating and Post-Editing.” InProceedings of MT Summit XVI. Edited by S. Kurohashi and P. Fung , vol.1, 144–55. Japan: International Association for Machine Translation.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Schaeffer, Moritz J. , and Michael Carl
    . 2017. “Language Processing and Translation.” InEmpirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting Edited by S. Hansen-Schirra , O. Čulo , S. Hofmann , and B. Meyer . Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Strauss, Anselm L. and Juliet M. Corbin
    1990 Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 1998 Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
    2005 “The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research.” Meta50 (2): 405–14. doi:10.7202/010990ar.
     https://doi.org/10.7202/010990ar [Google Scholar]
  50. Toury, Gideon
    2004 “Probabilistic Explanations in Translation Studies: Welcome as They Are, Would They Qualify as Universals?” InTranslation Universals: Do They exist?. Edited by A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki , 15–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/btl.48.03tou.
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.03tou [Google Scholar]
  51. 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 athttps://theses.ncl.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/10443/3130/1/Nunes%20Vieira%2C%20L%202016.pdf
  52. Walsham, Geoff
    1993 Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations. Chichester: Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00008.car
Loading
The development of the TPR-DB as Grounded Theory Method
Translation, Cognition & Behavior 1, 168 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00008.car
/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00008.car
/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00008.car
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): grounded theory method; introspection; longitudinal studies; monitor model; postediting and revision; process model; translation

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error