The phenomenon of interpreting is part of the larger one of translation, for which reason much of the Shared Ground described by Chesterman and Arrojo applies to interpreting as an object of study too. The essentialist vs. nonessentialist debate has not (so far) carried over to the discourse on interpreting per se—at least not in those terms—and in what follows I will not attempt to replicate it either. I’d merely like to pick up on a few of the writers’ points, and see where they take us in relation to the current pursuits of Interpreting Studies (IS).