Dilek Dizdar
Table of contents

“Deconstruction” is primarily used to refer to the philosophy of Jacques Derrida, although Derrida himself did not ascribe a privileged status to the term. It was incorporated into many disciplines and different approaches so that it became a more general term which moved beyond Derrida’s own work and has had a lasting influence on other poststructural, postmodern, postcolonial and gender-related approaches. Derrida’s radical challenge of traditional Western (metaphysical) philosophy, in particular of its hierarchical binary oppositions, has implications for translation theory and practice, which were first discussed in Translation Studies in the 1990s. Derrida himself attributes a central role to translation in his work and explicitly discusses its role in numerous publications.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.


Arrojo, Rosemary
1995“Tradition and the Resistance to Translation.” In Kultur, Interpretation, Translation, H. Salevsky (ed.), 53–60. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
1997“Asymmetrical Relations of Power and the Ethics of Translation.” Textcontext 11 = NF 1 (1): 5–24.  TSBGoogle Scholar
1998“The Revision of the Traditional Gap between Theory & Practice & the Empowerment of Translation in Postmodern Times.” The Translator 4 (1): 25–48. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Derrida, Jacques
1967/1978Of Grammatology. Trans. G.C. Spivak. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
1978Writing and Difference. Trans. A. Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
1981“Semiology and Grammatology: an Interview with Julia Kristeva.” In Positions. Trans. A. Bass, 17–36. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
1982“Différance.” In Margins of Philosophy. Trans. A. Bass, 3–27. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
1985a“Letter to a Japanese Friend.” In Derrida and Differance, D. Wood & R. Bernasconi (eds.), 1–5. Warwick: Parousia Press.Google Scholar
1985bThe Ear of the Other. Trans. P. Kamuf. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.  TSBGoogle Scholar
1985c“Des Tours de Babel.” Trans. J. Graham. In Difference in Translation, J. Graham (ed.) 165–207. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.  TSBGoogle Scholar
1998Monolingualism of the Other or The Prosthesis of Origin. Trans. P. Mensah. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2001“What Is a ‘Relevant’ Translation?” Trans. L. Venuti. Critical Inquiry 27: 174–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dizdar, Dilek
2009“Translational Transitions: ‘Translation proper’ and Translation Studies in the Humanities.” Translation Studies 2 (1). Special issue of The Translational Turn : 89–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1959“On linguistic aspects of translation.” In On translation, R.A. Brower (ed.), 232–9. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  TSB DOI logoGoogle Scholar

Further reading

Arrojo, Rosemary
2005“The Ethics of Translation in Contemporary Approaches to Translators Training.” In Training for the New Millennium – Pedagogies for Translation and Interpreting, Martha Tennent (ed.), 225–45. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins  TSB. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, Kathleen
2001Deconstruction and Translation. Manchester/Northampton: St. Jerome.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Dizdar, Dilek
2006Translation. Um- und Irrwege. Berlin: Frank und Timme.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa
2000Beyond Ambivalence: Postmodernity and the Ethics of Translation [Electronic series: Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 65]. Tampere University Press. http://​acta​.uta​.fi​/english​/teos​.php​?id​=4347 [Accessed 10 April 2011]  TSBGoogle Scholar