Multi-modal discourse analysis of the financial order proceedings from the perspective of litigants
in person
The paper presents a multi-modal discourse analysis of the financial order proceedings from the
perspective of litigants in person. The main focus is on the oscillation between different written and
spoken legal genres and narrative development strategies which litigants in person have to use
throughout different stages (from the early stages of starting the proceedings, filling in court forms
and providing other documentation through the negotiation process to interaction in court).
Research shows that while legal professionals express themselves in paradigmatic legal mode
influenced by legal acts and legislation, litigants in person tend to express themselves in narrative
mode similar to everyday storytelling. The paper explores the differences between the two discourse
types in the context of financial dispute resolution. Special attention is paid to linguistic,
communicative, conceptual, cognitive and procedural challenges experienced by individuals when
acting on their own behalf in legal proceedings. The objective is to investigate how the process
originally designed by legal professionals for their own use can be simplified for litigants in person to
empower them, without losing the important legal paradigmatic mode.
The research lies at an intersection of linguistics and socio-legal studies and uses linguistic research
methodology to investigate the discrepancy between legal-lay discourse types. The paper also
addresses different options litigants in person have for finding advice and support, including but not
exclusive to online information sources, Personal Support Unit services and direct access options for
counsel representation. The paper concludes the analysis by evaluating different options for the
simplification of procedures and forms and arguing for the need to provide more specific support for
different stages of the financial order proceedings.