本論文主要以ERP（evnet－related potentials）為實驗工具，並以聽覺刺激方式呈現，操弄處所存現句中句法成份移位為句法結構違反之實驗語料，來觀察是與語法相關的ERP腦波成份P600。
　　本文研究結果顯示：一、台語的實驗裡，在第二成份與第三成份的ERP腦波皆有在500~900ms間觀察到P600，但是在第二成份所觀察到的P600振幅比第三成份所觀察到的P600振幅還大，並且在第二成份中VOS引發P600的潛伏期比OSV引發P600的潛伏期還長，同時也在第三成份的分析上觀察到N400該一ERP腦波成份。二、華語的實驗裡，在第二成份與第三成份的 ERP 腦波皆有在500~900ms間觀察到P600，但是在第二成份所觀察到的P600振幅比第三成份所觀察到的P600振幅還大，並且在第二成份中VOS引發P600的潛伏期比OSV引發P600的潛伏期還長。
　　本研究在台語與華語兩個實驗中，在實驗語料語法違反類型的操作上，以不增添或刪略句法中的任何成份，僅移動句法結構中成份之間的位置，來保留句中原有的成份，在這樣的實驗語料操作之下，相較於基本結構SVO，確實在兩種變異結構 OSV與VOS之第二成份和第三成份的ERP腦波圖裡，觀察到P600的引發。

　　Event-related potentials (ERP) were recorded while the Taiwanese-Mandarin bilingual hear Taiwanese and Mandarin sentences in which the different order of the existential sentences elements subject, verb, object was systematically varied. Compared to the condition SVO, hope we can observe the ERP component P600 in the condition OSV and VOS.
　　Result of the study: First, the Taiwanese experiment, we observed the ERP component P600 during the 500-900 ms in the ERP waveform of the second and third element of the　sentences. However, the amplitude of the P600 which was elicited by the second element of the sentence was larger than elicited by the third element of the sentence. The latency of P600 which was elicited by the second element of the condition VOS was longer that elicited by the second element of the condition OSV.
　　By the way, we also observed that the ERP component N400 was elicited by the third component of the condition OSV and VOS. Second, the Mandarin experiment, we observed the ERP component P600 during the 500-900 ms in the ERP waveform of the second and third element of the sentences. However, the amplitude of the P600 which was elicited by the second element of the sentence was larger than elicited by the third element of the sentence. The latency of P600 which was elicited by the second element of the condition VOS was longer that elicited by the second element of the condition OSV.
　　In this study, we did not add or delete any element of the syntactic structure when we manipulate the conditions of the syntactic violation. We moved the position of the sentence elements only in order to keep all the elements of the sentence. Compared to the condition SVO, the ERP component P600 was elicited by the second and third elementa of the condition OSV and VOS.

丁邦新（譯）（1994）。中國話的文法（原作者：趙元任）。台灣：台灣學生書局。（原著出版年：1968）
王力（1985）。中國現代語法。北京：商務印書館。
朱德熙（1982）。語法講義。北京：商務印書館。
呂淑湘（1946）。從主語、賓語分別談國語句子的分析。《呂叔湘自選集》（445-480頁）。上海：上海教育出版社。
宋玉柱（1995）。為什麼說存現句是主謂句。語法論稿（101-103頁）。北京：北京語言學院出版社。
李訥、石毓智（1997）。漢語動詞重疊式產生的歷史根據。漢語語法化的歷程過程─形態句法發展的動機和機制（151-157頁）。北京：北京大學出版社。
李臨定（1986）。存在句型。現代漢語句型（73-83頁）。北京：商務印書館。
邢福義（1991）。現代漢語。北京：高等教育出版社。
周世箴（譯）（2006）。我們賴以生存的譬喻（原作者：Lakoff & Johnson）。台北：聯經出版社。（原著出版年：1980）
范方蓮（1963）。存在句。中國語文，5，386-395。
高名凱（1986）。漢語語法論。北京：商務印書館。
高名凱（譯）（1980）。普通語言學教程（Saussure, F. D.）。北京；商務印刷館。（原著出版年：1959）
曹保平（2010）。移位理論對漢語句法結構的解釋，南華大學學報（社會科學版），4，105-107。
楊秀芳（2000）。臺灣閩南語語法稿。台灣：大安出版社。
董成如（2008）。存現句的認知研究─基於參照點的行為鏈模式（博士論文）。中國：蘇州大學。取自 http://cnki50.csis.com.tw.autorpa.lib.nhcue.edu.tw:81/kns50/detail.aspx?QueryID=3&CurRec=1
鄒虹（2010）。從中心語移位理論和漢語施事述題化看俄漢OVS詞序變體。西安外國語大學學報，18（3），14-17。
劉月華、潘文娛、故韡（1996）。實用現代漢語語法。台灣：師大書苑。
潘文（2003）。論存現句的性質和範圍。連雲港師範高等專科學校學報，3，7-10。
蔡淑華（2009）。以事件誘發腦波電位探究中文分類詞與名詞之搭配關係（碩士論文）。台灣：國立成功大學。取自臺灣博碩士論文系統。
謝天蔚（譯）（1995）。主題在漢語中的功能研究：邁向語段分析的第一步。（原作者：曹逢甫）北京：語文出版社。（原著出版年：1979）
Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: event-related brain responses to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive processes, 13, 21-58.
De Vincenzi, M., Job, R., Di Matteo, R., Angrilli, A., Penolazzi, B., Ciccarelli, L., & Vepignani, F. (2003). Differences in the perception and time course of syntactic and semantic violations. Brain and Language, 85, 280-296.
Deutsch, A., & Bentin, S. (2001). Syntactic and semantic factors in processing gender agreement in Hebrew: evidence from ERPs and eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 200-224.
Friederici, A. D., & Frisch, S. (2000). Verb argument structure processing: The role of verb-specific and argument-specific information. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 476-507.
Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late event-related brain potential effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1219-1248.
Frisch, S., & Schlesewsky, M. (2005). The resolution of case conflicts: A neurophysiological perspective. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 484-498.
Frisch, S., Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Word category and verb-argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing. Cognition, 91, 191-219.
Frisch, S., Kotz, S. A., von Cramon, D. Y., & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Why the P600 is not just a P300: the role of the basal ganglia. Clinical Neurophysiology, 114, 336-340.
Frisch, S., Schlesewsky, M., Sabby, D., & Alpermann, A. (2002). The P600 as an indicator of syntactic ambiguity. Cognition, 85, B83-B92.
Gunter, T.C., Friederici, A.D., & Schriefers, H. (2000). Syntactic gender and semantic expectancy: ERPs reveal early autonomy and late interaction. Journal Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 556-568.
Gunter, T.C., Stowe, L.A., & Mulder, G. (1997). When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology, 34, 660-676
Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (2000). ERP effects of listening to speech compared to reading: the P600/SPS to syntactic violation in spoken sentences and rapid serial visual presentation. Neuropsychologia, 38, 1531-1549
Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 439–483.
Hagoort, P., Wassenaar, M., & Brown, C. M. (2003). Syntax-related ERP-effects in Dutch. Cognitive Brain Research, 16, 38-50.
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A., D. (2002). Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research, 12, 339-356.
Hahne, A., & Jescheniak, J. D. (2001). What’s left if the Jabberwock gets the semantics? An ERP investigation into semantic and syntactic processes during auditory sentence comprehension. Cognitive Brian Research, 11, 199-212.
Jiang, X. -M., & Zhou, X. -L. (2009). Processing different levels of syntactic hierarchy: An ERP study on Chinese. Neuropsychologia, 27, 1282-1293.
Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. J. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 159–201.
Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205-225.
Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2, 196-214.
Kotz, S. A., Holcomb, P. J., & Osterhout, L. (2008). ERPs reveal comparable syntactic sentence processing in native and non-native readers of English. Acta Psychological, 128(3), 514-527.
Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials reflect word expectancy and semantic association during reading. Nature, 307, 161-163.
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203-208.
Luck, S. J. (2005). An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Matzke, M., Mai, H., Nager, W., Rüsseler, J., Münte, T. (2002). The costs of freedom: an ERP – study of non-cnonical sentences. Clinical Neurophysiology, 113, 844-852
Münte, T. H., Matzke, M., & Johannes, S. (1997). Brain activity associated with wyntactic incongruencies in word and pseudo-words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 318-329.
Osterhout, L. (1997). On the Brain Response to Syntactic Anomalies: Manipulations of Word Position and Word Class Reveal Individual Differences. Brain and Language, 59, 494-522.
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785–806.
Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. A. (1995). Event-related Brain Potentials Elicited by Failure to Agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 739-773.
Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J., & Swinney, D., A. (1994). Brain Potentials Elicited by Garden-Path sentences: Evidence of the Application of Verb Information During Parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 786-803.
Osterhout, L., McKinnon, R., Bersick, M., & Corey, V. (1996). On the language-specificity of the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Is the syntactic positive shift a member of the P300 family? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 507–526.
Yang, C. -L., Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2010). Sentence integration processes: An ERP study of Chinese sentence comprehension with relative clauses. Brain and Language, 112, 85-100.
Ye, Z., & Zhou, X. -L. (2008). Involvement of cognitive control in sentence comprehension: Evidence from ERPs. Brain Research, 1203, 103-115.
Ye, Z., Luo, Y. -J., Friederici, A. D., & Zhou, X. -L. (2006). Semantic and syntactic processing in Chinese sentence comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain Research, 1071(1), 186-196.
Ye, Z., Zhan, W. -D., & Zhou, X. -L. (2007). The semantic processing of syntactic structure in sentence comprehension: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1142, 135-145.