Schäffner (1998) explores different types of hedges in European political discourse. Relying on Lakoff’s (1973) definition, Schäffner (1998) defines hedges as words whose meaning involves “vagueness, indeterminateness” (Schäffner, 1998, p. 185) with reference to the phrase they modify. Schäffner (1998) establishes five types of hedges: evidentiality hedges such as I think, it seems, which refer to the speaker’s degree of commitment to the truth expressed in a text; modifying hedges such as fairly, too, typical, which “shift the scope of indeterminateness of the utterances” (Schäffner, 1998, p. 191); quantifying hedges such as in every respect, in some respect, which “relate to characteristics of the whole scope of precision” (Schäffner, 1998, p. 191); descpecifying hedges such as kind of, roughly, which “extend the scope of indeterminateness” (Schäffner, 1998, p. 192); and specifying hedges such as real, genuine, true, exactly, which “narrow down the scope of indeterminateness of a concept or a proposition” (Schäffner, 1998, p. 193). Based on comparative pragmatic textual analysis, Schäffner (1998) concludes that source text hedges can be rendered as the same type of hedges in the target language, as different type of hedges causing shifts in the target text, can be deleted and even new hedges can be added in the target text. Politically contextualising the examples, Schäffner (1998) explains the effects such hedges have on the receivers of the translated texts. Schäffner (1998) concludes by noting the semantic and pragmatic problems hedges can cause to translators and calls for a more systematic description of hedging devices. This suggests that microlevel textual features must be taken into consideration in the analysis of the translation of political texts. The above studies show that research must extend to the realisations of certain recurrent translation strategies surfacing in translated political texts and their pragmatic effects, as conclusions established on the basis of one-off or non-contextualised microtextual textual instances may produce misleading research results.