以往語言人類學家只著重敘事結構，分析它如何反映社會真實。隨著典範的 改變，研究者轉向重視敘事創造社會真實的建構性面向，強調語言不只是結構的承 載者，而且可以同時是創發社會常規與斷裂的社會實踐。這樣對語言實踐的理論立 場可以用來澄清語言和創傷的關係，因為語言能夠處理創傷但卻也不能全面揭露創 傷。人們表達痛苦的情感就必須經過許多轉折才能和語言形式連接起來。所以，即 使是沉默和無法言語都指出了一個論述的策略，既包含也拒絕了現存的社會秩序。
本文採取了語言即實踐的理論，檢視臺灣921大地震的各種敘事，試圖顯現它 們表達對抗社會結構的生命經驗。本文將分析筆者在東勢所收集到的個人所說的故 事，看看它們做為一種社會行動形式、文化資源以及社會文化實踐的各種意涵。相 對於許多官方對於921大地震敘事，災民的個人敘事是甚麼呢？它們有可能挑戰官 方的敘事嗎？本文指出敘事策略，表示出說話者的選擇、意圖與聽眾的關係，說話 者在敘事過程中，具現出它的自我和能動性。

A paradigm shift of the features of narrative from the structural view of language of representing reality to the constructionist one of creating reality primarily emphasizes language not only as a conveyor of structure, but as a practice of initiating normalcy as well as ruptures. This theorizing about language practice can be adopted to clarify the relation of language to suffering precisely because language may be available to cope with suffering while still unable to reveal it wholly. Expressing the emotions of pain means to establish varied links with linguist forms. Even silence and no language point to a discourse strategy that accommodates and resists existing social forces.
In keeping with the idea of language as practice, this article examines narratives about the 9/21 earthquake in Taiwan as articulating life experiences against the realities of social structure. I will look at personal stories as a form of social action, a cultural resource, and a subset of socio-cultural practice. When scholars treat language, culture, and society as mutually constituted, the focus is on the micro-processes of language interaction because these are the ways speaking subjects are shaped by narrative and in turn have the potential to alter narrative.