在第二語言習得裡的心智層面，學習時間是否可以改變第二語言學習者對於詞序的指派是一個令人感興趣的議題。在這個研究裡，研究者以ERPs為工具，嘗試去論證上述的議題。
在研究者的實驗裡，每題的語料皆為音串與圖片的組合。在音串方面，皆為名詞與動詞的組合；在圖片方面，每一張圖片表示一個人對另一個人做了一個動作。藉由不同的聲音與圖片的組合，研究者得到三個實驗條件，分別為：AVP、APV、PAV詞序。整個實驗裡一共有90題。實驗參與者一共分為兩組，分別為台灣人組跟韓國人組。研究者假設韓籍華語學習者組的結果跟華語母語者的腦波結果不同。
在華語母語者這組，一共有21位實驗參與者（男性2位，女性19位，平均年齡為24，範圍從21-37歲，標準差為4.67）；在韓籍華語學習者這組，一共有6位實驗參與者（男性2位，女性4位，平均年齡為42，範圍從21到50歲，標準差為10.86）
在研究者的ERPs結果裡，發現台灣人這組的腦波反應是：PAV與AVP、APV無顯著差異；韓籍華語學習者的腦波反應是：PAV與AVP、APV有顯著差異。跟假設相同的是，韓國人的腦波反應確實與華語母語者不同。
研究者同時也做了溯源分析，推斷受試者進行語料輸入時的大腦反應。不意外的，研究者得到了的文獻中提及，在使用語言時會活化的腦區。對於華語母語者，這些部位是：ACC、R-IFG、L-STG、L-SFG、L-MFG；對於韓籍華語學習者來說，這些部位是：L-IFG、L-STG。

In the field of second language acquisition, whether learning time can change the assignment of second language learners to word order is an interesting issue. In our research, we tried to confirm it.
In our experiments, there was a combination of a chain of sounds and a picture in every trial. Every chain of sounds was a compound of noun and verb, and every picture was an act that a person does to another. By combining chains of sounds with pictures, we obtained three condition, AVP, APV, PAV. They represented word orders meanwhile. There were totally 90 trials in our experiments and there were two groups in our experiments, Taiwanese and Korean.
We hypothesized that Korean brainwaves are different than Chinese.
In the Taiwanese group, there were 21 participants（female=19,male=2, mean age 24, range 20 to 37, SD=4.67）,and in the Korean group, there were totally 6 Korean participants（female=4,male=2,mean age 42, range 21 to 50, SD=10.86）.
In our ERPs result, we found Taiwanese brainwaves' trend were that PAV had no difference than AVP and APV and Korean brainwaves' trend were that PAV was different than AVP and APV. The two trends were different, and it was consistent with our hypothesis.
We also conducted source reconstruction to deduce the brain reaction from the courses while participants are inputting the materials. Not surprisingly, we found that while participants were conducting language, some of their brain regions that literatures had mentioned were activated. For Chinese, they were ACC、R-IFG、L-STG、L-SFG、L-MFG, and for Korean, they were L-IFG、L-STG.
Key word : ERPs、reconstruction、NNV、NVN、word order

中文文獻
金立鑫 （2017）。《語言類型探索》。北京：商務印書館。

屈承熹 （2010）。《漢語功能篇章語法-從認知、功能到篇章結構》。台北：文鶴出版有限公司。

國語日報出版中心主編 （2010）。《新編國語日報字典》。台北：國語日報社

黃宣範（譯）（2010）。《漢語語法》（原作者：Charles N. Li & Sandra A. Thompson）。台北：文鶴出版有限公司。

鄧守信主編 （2015）。《當代中文課程第二冊》。台北：聯經出版事業股份有限公司。

溫曉虹 （2010）。《漢語作為外語的習得研究-理論基礎與課堂實踐》。北京：北京大學出版社。

劉月華、潘文娛、故韡 （2009）。《實用現代漢語語法》。台北：師大書苑。

英文文獻
Angela D. Friederici（1995）. The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language.259-281.

Bowden, H., Steinhauer, K., Sanz, C., & Ullman, M. (2013). Native-like brain processing of syntax can be attained by university foreign language learners. Neuropsychologia, 51(13), 2492-2511

Caffarra, S., Molinaro, N., Davidson, D., & Carreiras, M. (2015). Second language syntactic processing revealed through event-related potentials: An empirical review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 51, 31-47.

Erdocia, K., Zawiszewski, A., & Laka, I. (2014). Word order processing in a second language: From VO to OV. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 43(6), 815-837.

Friederici, A. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences (Regular ed.), 6(2), 78-84.

Hagoort, P. (2005). On Broca, brain, and binding: a new framework. Trends in cognitive sciences (Regular ed.), 9(9), 416-423.

Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. (1999). Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(2), 194-205.

Huang, Xuanfan（2013）. Chinese Grammar at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(2), 159-201.

Kuperberg, G. (2007). Corrigendum to “Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax.”Brain research, 1146 (2007), 23–49.

Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in cognitive sciences (Regular ed.), 4(12), 463-470.

Mamashli, F., Khan, S., Obleser, J., Friederici, A., & Maess, B. (2019). Oscillatory dynamics of cortical functional connections in semantic prediction. Human Brain Mapping, 40(6), 1856-1866.

Morgan Short, K., Steinhauer, K., Sanz, C., & Ullman, M. (2012). Explicit and implicit second language training differentially affect the achievement of native-like brain activationpPatterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(4), 933-947.

Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., Kim, A., Greenwald, R., Inoue, K., Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (2004). Sentences in the brain: Event-related potentials as real-time reflections of sentence comprehension and language learning. In Manuel Carreiras & Charles E. Clifton, Jr（Eds.） The On-line Study of Sentence Comprehension: Eyetracking, ERPs and Beyond（271-308）. New York: Psychology Press.

Pulvermüller, F., Shtyrov, Y., & Hauk, O. (2009). Understanding in an instant: Neurophysiological evidence for mechanistic language circuits in the brain. Brain and Language, 110(2), 81-94.

Shen, W., Fiori Duharcourt, N., & Isel, F. (2016). Functional significance of the semantic P600. NeuroReport, 27(7), 548-558.

Sun, C.-F., & Givon, T. (2020). On the so-called SOV word order in Mandarin Chinese: A quantified text study and its implications. Language, 61(2), 329-351.

Tanner, D., Inoue, K., & Osterhout, L. E. E. (2014). Brain-based individual differences in online L2 grammatical comprehension. Bilingualism, 17(2), 277-293.

Trask, R.L.（1999）. Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics. New York: Routledge

Trébuchon, A., Démonet, J.-F., Chauvel, P., Liégeois Chauvel, C., Demonet, J.-F., & Liegeois Chauvel, C. (2013). Ventral and dorsal pathways of speech perception: An intracerebral ERP study. Brain and Language, 127(2), 273-283.

Willams & Colomb. (2010). Style. The United States: Pearson Education, Inc.

Weber, K., & Lavric, A. (2008). Syntactic anomaly elicits a lexico-semantic (N400) ERP effect in the second language but not the first. Psychophysiology, 45(6), 920-925.

Yang, C., Perfetti, C., & Liu, Y. (2010). Sentence integration processes: An ERP study of Chinese sentence comprehension with relative clauses. Brain and Language, 112(2), 85-100.