Article published in:
Translation, Cognition & Behavior
Vol. 1:1 (2018) ► pp. 168193
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. CrossrefGoogle 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.
2007Working Memory, Thought, and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Birks, Melanie and Jane Mills
2011Grounded Theory: A practical guide. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
2002Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. Crossref.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, Barbara Dragsted, and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen
2011 “A Taxonomy of Human Translation Styles.” Translation Journal 16 (2). Available at http://​translationjournal​.net​/journal​/56taxonomy​.htm
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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael
In print. “Literal Translation, Default Translation and the Similarity of Language Systems.” Target
Charmaz, Kathy
2006Constructing 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. Crossref.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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders
2000 “Expertise in Interpreting: An Expert-Performance Perspective.” Interpreting 5 (2): 189–222. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, Barney G.
2008 “Qualitative and Quantitative Research.” Gounded Theory Review 7 (2). Available at http://​groundedtheoryreview​.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.
1978Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss
1967The 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
2012From Thematic Analysis to Grounded Theory. Lecture notes available at http://​www​.mermaid​.pitt​.edu​/documents​/MERMAID%20GrndedThry%20talk%20HEIST​.pdf
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hvelplund, Kristian Tangsgaard
2016 “Cognitive Efficiency in Translation.” In Reembedding Translation Process Research. Edited by R. Muñoz, 149–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Allocation 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
Immonen, Sini
2006 “Translation as a Writing Process: Pauses in Translation versus Monolingual Text Production.” Target 18 (2): 313–336. Crossref.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 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krings, Hans Peter
1986Was 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. Crossref.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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, Keith
1998 “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research.” Psychological Bulletin 124 (3): 372–422. Crossref.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 http://​www​.qualitative​-research​.net​/index​.php​/fqs​/article​/view​/1412​/2902 doi:  Crossref
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. CrossrefGoogle 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 Crossref
Strauss, Anselm L. and Juliet M. Corbin
1990Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage.Google Scholar
1998Basics 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. Crossref.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. Crossref.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 https://​theses​.ncl​.ac​.uk​/dspace​/bitstream​/10443​/3130​/1​/Nunes%20Vieira%2C%20L%202016​.pdf
Walsham, Geoff
1993Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar


The development of the TPR-DB as Grounded Theory Method
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Halverson, Sandra L.
2019. ‘Default’ translation. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 2:2  pp. 187 ff. Crossref 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. Crossref logo
Schaeffer, Moritz, Jean Nitzke & Silvia Hansen-Schirra
2019.  In Handbook of the Changing World Language Map,  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Schaeffer, Moritz, Jean Nitzke & Silvia Hansen-Schirra
2020.  In Handbook of the Changing World Language Map,  pp. 3939 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 07 february 2022. 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.