Abstract
The present article aims at compare the epistemological assumptions of Materialistic Discourse Analysis with the epistemological critiques of Paul Feyerabend and the evidentiary paradigm of the historian Carlo Ginzburg. Going through the relations among state, science, subalternity and materialism, it identifies proximities between Michel Pêcheux's approaches around exceptions, and Ginzburg's surrounding exceptional. It discusses the place of evidence and no-inductive procedures in scientific practice, as well as the methodological pluralism of historical studies, punctuating various cross-references amongst historians' researches, Feyerabend's epistemological anarchism, and established discursive analysis procedures by Pêcheux and other analysts, as Eni Orlandi and her concept of discursive clipping. Based on the implications of this concept, the article presents the results of the analysis of the testimony of a director of the Bahia road workers' union, contrary to the release of bus ratchet during a category strike.
Keywords:
Epistemology; Discourse Analysis; Evidential Paradigm; Clipping