In translation theory, a translation is said to be
when it reads fluently, when it does not bear any linguistic or cultural features that are reminiscent of the source language and culture.
translation thus stands in sharp contrast to the notion of interference, which is generally viewed as one of the worst linguistic mistakes in translation. However, the tendency to resort to interference, knowingly or unknowingly, is usually high among speakers who are bilingual or live in bilingual settings (for example speakers of French in North America). For some of these speakers, interference is not always a mistake, but an integral part of communication strategies as well as a marker of a distinct and distinctive linguistic identity. For others, interference is nothing less than a plague that threatens the integrity of the language, of the culture, and therefore of the group identity. In such a sociolinguistic environment, translating idiomatically or counteridiomatically becomes quickly coloured by ideology. What are these ideologies? How do they impact translation as a product? To tackle these questions, the paper will examine the impact of two types of ideological discourse relating to French spoken in Quebec and their impact on translation. It will argue that French Quebecker translators are, as it were, torn between the requirement to protect the quality of the French language in Quebec and the imperative to adapt their translations to their target audience whose workaday idiom bear the features of English (anglicisms).