Why are translation and paraphrase considered approximate according to deconstruction?

In the context of deconstruction, translation and paraphrase are considered approximate because linguistic meaning is not a fixed, stable entity that exists prior to language.1

Deconstruction, particularly through the work of Jacques Derrida, argues that meaning is determined by the "play" of differences between words rather than by an original intention or idea. Because the meaning of any word is defined by its contrasts with other words—which are themselves defined by further contrasts—meaning is never fully "present." Instead, it is endlessly deferred in an infinite chain of signifiers, each containing the "traces" of others.1

This perspective aligns with the broader philosophical challenge to the "metaphysics of presence," which assumes that truth or meaning exists independently of its representation. Since there is no objective, determinate meaning that exists outside of this shifting network of linguistic differences, any attempt to translate or paraphrase a text cannot capture a singular, original "truth." Consequently, translation and paraphrase are inherently approximate, as they merely navigate a system where meaning is always subject to the indefinite play of language.12