@Banno says (see) that the linguistic turn is in fact only something we take granted nowadays as a method of doing philosophy, with the unstated goal of linguistic philosophy being clarity of thought and lesser confusion between participants of a conversation or discussion.

Now, I see no reason to think otherwise; but, if this is in fact true, and having already read some of Richard Rorty's thought, I feel compelled to claim that the linguistic turn contributed to old pragmatic thought.

Does this make sense to you?

Because pragmatism never really stood out in philosophy after William James and Dewey; but, if the above is true, then isn't credit due to pragmatism more than already presumed nowadays?