The Language-Action Approach: Information Systems Supporting Social Actions

  • Karthikeyan UmapathyEmail author
Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 29)


The Language-Action Perspective (LAP) approach, with the premise that people perform actions through communication, provides an appropriate framework for analyzing and designing information systems matching the needs of today’s information and communication technology (ICT)-intensive organizations. The LAP approach considers that work in organizations is performed through communication and coordination among its workers. Therefore, according to the LAP approach, purpose of the information systems is to support social actions. Language-action theories provide information systems researchers guidance to gain a comprehensive understanding on how people can use communication to create, control, and maintain social interactions in the organizational context. In this chapter, we provide an overview of the LAP approach and its main theoretical foundation Habermas’ theory of communicative action along with a discussion on the differences between ­traditional view and LAP view of information systems.


Language-Action Perspective LAP Language-Action Theories Theory of Communicative Action Speech Act Theory 



Information and communication technologies


Language-action perspective


Theory of communicative action


Universe of discourse


  1. Agerfalk, P. J. (2004). Investigating actability dimensions: A language/action perspective on criteria for information systems evaluation. Interacting with Computers, 16(5), 957–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beynon-Davies, P. (2009). The ‘language’ of informatics: The nature of information systems. International Journal of Information Management, 29(2), 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., & Janson, M. (1999). Communicative action theory: An approach to understanding the application of information systems. Paper presented at the Australasian conference on information systems, Wellington.Google Scholar
  6. Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1998). Information, systems and information systems – Making sense of the field. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Connors, D. T. (1992). Software development methodologies and traditional and modern information systems. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 17(2), 43–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, G. B., & Olson, M. H. (1984). Management information systems: Conceptual foundations, structure, and development (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  9. De Michelis, G., Dubois, E., Jarke, M., Matthes, F., Mylopoulos, J., Papazoglou, M. P., et al. (1997). Cooperative information systems: A manifesto. In M. P. Papazoglou & G. Schlageter (Eds.), Cooperative information systems: Trends & directions. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. de Moor, A. (2002). Language/action meets organisational semiotics: Situating conversations with norms. Information Systems Frontiers, 4(3), 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietz, J. L. G. (2004, June 2–3). Towards a LAP-based information paradigm. Paper presented at the international working conference on the language-action perspective on communication modelling (LAP), Rutgers University, New Brunswick.Google Scholar
  12. Flores, F., Graves, M., Hartfield, B., & Winograd, T. (1988). Computer systems and the design of organizational interaction. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems (TOIS), 6(2), 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flores, F., & Ludlow, J. (1980). Doing and speaking in the office. In G. Fick & R. H. Sprague (Eds.), Decision support systems: Issues and challenges (Vol. 11, pp. 95–118). New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  14. Goldkuhl, G., & Lyytinen, K. (1982). A language action view of information systems. International conference on information systems, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  15. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans., Vol. 1). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  16. Habermas, J. (1985). The theory of communicative action: Lifeword and system: A critique of functionalist reason (T. McCarthy, Trans., Vol. 2). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jones, G. O., & Basden, A. (2003). How Habermas’ action types can influence KBS design and use. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 6(1).Google Scholar
  18. Klein, H. K., & Huynh, M. Q. (2004). The critical social theory of Jürgen Habermas and its implications for IS research. In J. Mingers & L. Willcocks (Eds.), Social theory and philosophy for information systems (pp. 157–237). West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Lyytinen, K., & Hirschheim, R. (1988). Information systems as rational discourse: An application of Habermas’s theory of communicative action. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 4(1–2), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Manninen, T. (2003). Interaction forms and communicative actions in multiplayer games. The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 3(1).Google Scholar
  21. Ngwenyama, O. K., & Lee, A. S. (1997). Communication richness in electronic mail: Critical social theory and the contextuality of meaning. MIS Quarterly, 21(2), 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K., & Belitz, K. (1994). Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science, 263(5147), 641–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rittgen, P. (2006). A language-mapping approach to action-oriented development of information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(1), 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saiedi, N. (1987). A critique of Habermas’ theory of practical rationality. Studies in East European Thought, 33(3), 251–265.Google Scholar
  25. Schoop, M. (2001). An introduction to the language-action perspective. ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin, 22(2), 3–8.Google Scholar
  26. Schoop, M. (2002). Electronic markets for architects – The architecture of electronic markets. Information Systems Frontiers, 4(3), 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Umapathy, K. (2009). Language-action perspective (LAP). In Y. K. Dwivedi, B. Lal, M. D. Williams, S. L. Schneberger, & M. R. Wade (Eds.), Handbook of research on contemporary theoretical models in information systems (pp. 113–130). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Umapathy, K., & Purao, S. (2007). A theoretical investigation of the emerging standards for web services. Information Systems Frontiers, 9(1), 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weigand, H. (2006). Two decades of the language-action perspective: Introduction. Communications of the ACM, 49(5), 44–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wilson, D. C. (1991, September 26–29). The theory of communicative action and the problem of the commons. Paper presented at the international association for the study of common ­property, Winnipeg, Manitoba.Google Scholar
  32. Yetim, F. (2009). From communicative action theory to socio-technical artifacts: Presentation of three system prototypes. In J. Becker, H. Krcmar, & B. Niehaves (Eds.), Wissenschaftstheorie und gestaltungsorientierte Wirtschaftsinformatik (pp. 23–42). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ComputingUniversity of North FloridaJacksonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations