Cover not available

Article published In: Translation, Cognition & Behavior
Vol. 1:1 (2018) ► pp.168–193

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The development of the TPR-DB as Grounded Theory Method

 | Renmin University of China
 | University of Mainz, Germany
Published online: 2 March 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00008.car
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 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.
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
References (52)
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Baddeley, Alan D. 2007. Working Memory, Thought, and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Birks, Melanie and Jane Mills. 2011. Grounded Theory: A practical guide. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. .Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. .Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hvelplund, Kristian Tangsgaard. 2016. “Cognitive Efficiency in Translation.” In Reembedding Translation Process Research. Edited by R. Muñoz, 149–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Allocation of Cognitive Resources in Translation: An Eye-tracking and Key-logging Study (PhD Series, No. 10.2011). Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Kumpulainen, Minna. 2015. “On the Operationalisation of ‘Pauses’ in Translation Process Research.” Translation and Interpreting 7 (1): 47–58. Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1929. “Guessing.” Hound and Horn, 2 (3): 267–282.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith. 1998. “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research.” Psychological Bulletin 124 (3): 372–422. .Google Scholar logo with link to 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]
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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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.
Strauss, Anselm L. and Juliet M. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 2005. “The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research.” Meta 50 (2): 405–14. .Google Scholar logo with link to 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. .Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Shih, Claire Y.
2023. Navigating the Web, 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
Halverson, Sandra L.
2019. ‘Default’ translation. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 2:2 ► pp. 187 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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue