Historical studies are based predominantly on written sources. These sources, in turn, are the product of verbal portrayal and human communication. In other words, they are linguistic documents. The »linguistic turn« has drawn particular attention to the consequences of this aspect of historical sources and, as a result, has triggered much controversy in the field of history. The »pragmatic turn«, however, has been all but ignored by historians, in spite of its clear focus on human communication. This essay aims to address the problem of verbal portrayal in written sources. It posits the thesis that, under certain circumstances, the »linguistic turn« and the »pragmatic turn« harbour a methodical potential of considerable value in examining the issue of the verbal character of written sources. First of all, the terms »linguistic turn« and »pragmatic turn« will be defined. This will be followed by a discussion of the contribution that the »linguistic« and »pragmatic turn« respectively make to the interpretation of sources, by way of example of early modern lawcourt records. Finally, drawing upon examples of cases of blasphemy in early modern Zurich, the essay will outline the prospects for historical research when sources are read not only as linguistic documents but also as records of verbal communication.
