Concession in Judicial Decision:Case Study of Marbury v. Madison

ABSTRACT

This thesis explores how concession can be used to help a judge get out of dilemma and resolve conflicts in the judicial decision. The theoretical foundation is the linguistic device of concession in the APPRAISAL Systems developed within the paradigm of the systematic functional linguistics. This research uses the qualitative method, and the object of study is the judicial decision of Judge Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison.
Judges are easy to be stuck in dilemmas, because they have to face various kinds of conflicts at the same time. The application of excellent language strategy, however, enables them to resolve contradictions tactfully, and safeguard justice and court’s authority. As a special linguistic device as well as a language strategy, concession, with the function of countering expectancy, can effectively track and monitor readers’ expectations. By using this strategy, the author gives readers an expectation about what is likely to happen next, and after that s/he counters it. The logical thinking of the author is not straight when he is using this language strategy, so it can be used by a judge to face conflicts when he is stuck in a dilemma in which straight logical thinking may arouse conflicts.
This thesis takes the case of Marbury v. Madison as an example, and it divides Judge Marshall’s argument, aimed at resolving the conflict with administrative department, into three phases, represented by three questions he raises respectively. Marshall gives positive answers to the first two questions. The answer to the third question is supposed to be positive as well according to his reasoning. Surprisingly, Marshall gives a negative answer to the last question and counters audience’s expectation. This thesis analyzes Marshall’s argument in the light of linguistics, in order to find out how Marshall successfully persuades the administrative department and safeguards the Supreme Court’s authority by using concession.

Keywords: Marbury v. Madison; dilemma; concession; counterexpectancy