Nevertheless, her 1989 translation of Richard III was considered inadequate by some critics, in particular Robert Lévesque, who published an incisive review "Du Shakespeare en réduction" the same year. While the Acadian writer had maximized foreignness (by contrast to Gurik's and Garneau's efforts), she had nevertheless not yet succumbed to the empire of the Shakespearean hexameter, choosing instead the conventional French alexandrine (Lévesque 1989: 12–13), her Richard III betraying the traditional French tendency to make the translated text conform to French literary tastes and textual conventions. However, Maillet's approach evolved in direct response to the negative criticism penned by members of the target culture. Members of a cultural community are generally able to recognize linguistic practices as "belonging" to their culture and to spot "foreign" practices that may have been retained by a translator who has adopted the norms of the source culture (Toury 1995: 56). In this case members of the target culture sought out foreign practices in the translation product and, in stark contrast to the preceding decade, expressed disappointment at not finding more examples. Maillet had initially resisted the interference of British literary conventions and received a "negative" sanction when her translation behaviour was evaluated (1995: 54–55). This "problem" was corrected in her 1993 translation of Twelfth Night, and the following review by Solange Lévesque is glowing:

La dramaturge acadienne semble s'être retrouvée chez l'auteur britannique comme dans un univers familier; la multiplicité des tons, la raillerie, la roublardise, les équivoques, le plaisir du jeu (jeu des mots, jeu des r?les), la vivacité et le naturel des dialogues, tous ces traits brillamment entremêlés chez Shakespeare ont trouvé en fran?ais, grace à la traductrice, des correspondances qui font de son texte une traduction d'une valeur indiscutable. (Lévesque 1993 : 31)

Not all writers-cum-translators are as responsive to their critics as is Antonine Maillet. She is in the enviable position of being financially independent, in large part thanks to the success of La Sagouine and Pélagie-la-Charrette, and could have chosen to ignore them. In fact, she chooses to translate what interests her and what the Théatre du Rideau Vert is interested in producing. Furthermore, it would appear that she wishes to please her audience by giving them the type of translation they are expecting.

It is interesting that the Acadian writer should have chosen a canonical Elizabethan writer to explore the limits of French (literary) language, especially considering the "irreconcilable philological differences" between the two language systems, "including the lack of elasticity of the arguably more regulated French language" (Beddows 2000: 11). However, we have already seen that Maillet considers Shakespeare one of the greatest writers of all time, hence a model worthy of imitation. Maillet's international recognition had also transformed her into an "authorized spokesperson" (Bourdieu 1982: 169) of not only the French–Canadian literary system, but also of the French language. And as Pierre Bourdieu has written, a culture's authorized spokespersons are called upon to reproduce officially sanctioned behaviour. Moreover, Antonine Maillet's "translations of Shakespeare demonstrate Québec's ability, in the 1990s, to tolerate the foreign on its stages" (Beddows 2000:102).

責(zé)任編輯：admin