ANALYZING THE LOSS OF MEANING IN ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF MIAN MUHAMMAD BAKHSH'S SAIF-UL-MALOOK

Authors

  • Aamna Firdaus
  • Prof. Dr. Anser Mahmood
  • Faraha Saqlain
  • Ume Iqra

Keywords:

Translation Strategies, Domestication and Foreignization, loss of spiritual meaning, Spiritual loss, Saif-ul-Malook

Abstract

This research investigates the complexities of meaning transfer in the English translation of Saif-ul-Malook, a renowned Punjabi Sufi text rich in spiritual symbolism and cultural depth. The study focuses on the phenomenon of loss of meaning that occurs when mystical poetry, deeply rooted in indigenous linguistic and cultural contexts, is rendered into a global language. The research particularly examines two dimensions of loss: general semantic loss at lexical and metaphorical levels, and spiritual loss, where the mystical essence, symbolic layers, and experiential depth of the original text become diminished in translation. The theoretical and methodological framework is grounded in Lawrence Venuti’s (1995, 1998) concepts of domestication and foreignization, which serve as the analytical lens for evaluating the strategies employed by the translator. The study concludes that a balanced application of both strategies could better preserve the aesthetic, cultural, and spiritual integrity of Sufi poetry in translation. This research contributes to the field of Applied Linguistics and Translation Studies by highlighting the challenges of translating mystical texts, demonstrating the implications of translation strategies for cross-cultural communication, and providing insights into the preservation of spiritual meaning in world literature. It underscores the translator’s role not only as a linguistic mediator but also as a cultural and spiritual bridge.

Downloads

Published

2025-10-24

How to Cite

Aamna Firdaus, Prof. Dr. Anser Mahmood, Faraha Saqlain, & Ume Iqra. (2025). ANALYZING THE LOSS OF MEANING IN ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF MIAN MUHAMMAD BAKHSH’S SAIF-UL-MALOOK. Policy Research Journal, 3(10), 510–521. Retrieved from https://policyrj.com/1/article/view/1181