In the Interpreting Studies literature there are several, sometimes contradictory or even vague taxonomies of interpreting.

 

 

A more sophisticated and transparent taxonomy of interpreting is needed in order to fully understand the different types of interpreting. It is only possible if one describes the types of interpreting according to different criteria. Pöchhacker’s taxonomy of the types of interpreting works exactly like that, using a set of criteria to describe interpreting (Pöchhacker, 2004; 2016; 2022).

 

Pöchhacker provides a systematic inventory of the types and subtypes of interpreting based on five typological parameters (Pöchhacker, 2022). The first parameter is language modality, based on which spoken-language and sign language interpreting can be differentiated (Pöchhacker, 2022). The second parameter is that of working mode, based on which consecutive and simultaneous interpreting can be differentiated. Additional subtypes of simultaneous interpreting according to working mode include (1) whispered interpreting or whispering, sometimes referred to as chuchotage, (2) sight translation, during which the interpreter gives and oral rendering of a written SL text, and (3) SI with a text, when the interpreters receive the written version of the SL text, and, during SI, they listen to and read the SL text concurrently. The third typological parameter is language direction. Interpreters can work to the mother tongue or A language, or to their B language, which is also referred to as their active language (Pöchhacker, 2022). Interpreting into the B language is sometimes referred to as retour interpreting. The SL of the interpreting can be the A, B, or C language of the interpreter, a C or passive language is used only passively, in other words, as a source language from which the interpreter works into the mother tongue. Interpreting might happen through a third language, in this case it is not possible for the interpreter to interpret from the language used by the SL speaker. This is called relay interpreting (Pöchhacker, 2022). The fourth typological parameter is the use of technology, which has gained increasing importance since the COVID-19 pandemic through the extended use of remote interpreting. Previous categories (Pöchhacker, 2004) included remote interpreting, with subcategories such as telephone interpreting, and video interpreting, and the emerging new technology of machine interpreting. These have been complemented by remote simultaneous interpreting (RSI), using simultaneous interpreting delivery platforms (SIDPs) (Pöchhacker, 2022). The fifth parameter is the professional status of interpreters, which include the subtypes of professionally trained, semi-professional and natural interpreters. For a summary, see Table 1.3.