## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Estimate** & **Std. Error** & **df** & **t** & **Sig.** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**95\% Confidence Interval**} \\ \cline{5-8}  & & & & & & **Lower Bound** & **Upper Bound** \\ \hline Intercept & 2.928052 & 0.099342 & 18.715 & 29.475 & 0.000 & 2.719914 & 3.136191 \\
[subject coding = Polish] & 0.294094 & 0.139127 & 17.999 & 2.114 & 0.049 & 0.001799 & 0.586390 \\
[subject coding = TM] & 0 b & 0 & - & - & - & - \\
[PositionCodingA = 1] & 0.230532 & 0.012816 & 35,129.017 & 17.988 & 0.000 & 0.205413 & 0.255651 \\
[PositionCodingA = 2] & \(-\)0.295471 & 0.012816 & 35,129.017 & \(-\)23.055 & 0.000 & \(-\)0.320590 & \(-\)0.270352 \\
[PositionCodingA = 3] & \(-\)0.293198 & 0.012816 & 35,129.017 & \(-\)22.878 & 0.000 & \(-\)0.318318 & \(-\)0.268079 \\
[PositionCodingA = 4] & 0 b & 0 & - & - & - & - \\
[PositionCodingB = 1] & 0.279298 & 0.012799 & 35,128.999 & 21.822 & 0.000 & 0.254212 & 0.304385 \\
[PositionCodingB = 2] & \(-\)0.137220 & 0.012807 & 35,129.004 & \(-\)10.714 & 0.000 & \(-\)0.162323 & \(-\)0.112118 \\
[PositionCodingB = 3] & \(-\)0.263331 & 0.012807 & 35,129.004 & \(-\)20.561 & 0.000 & \(-\)0.288434 & \(-\)0.238228 \\
[PositionCodingB = 4] & 0 b & 0 & - & - & - & - \\ time & \(-\)0.016423 & 0.000714 & 35,128.999 & \(-\)23.010 & 0.000 & \(-\)0.017822 & \(-\)0.015024 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Dependent variable: T-value. b This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: The estimates of fixed effects a. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**(I) Position** & **(J) Position** & **Mean** & & & & **95\% Confidence Interval for Difference c**  \\
**Coding A** & **Coding A** & **Difference (I-J)** & **Std. Error** & **df** & **Sig.c** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Lower Bound**} & **Upper Bound** \\ \hline  & 2 & 0.526 * & 0.013 & 35,128.999 & 0.000 & 0.501 & 0.551 \\
1 & 3 & 0.524 * & 0.013 & 35,128.999 & 0.000 & 0.499 & 0.549 \\  & 4 & 0.231 * & 0.013 & 35,129.017 & 0.000 & 0.205 & 0.256 \\  & 1 & \(-\)0.526 * & 0.013 & 35,128.999 & 0.000 & \(-\)0.551 & \(-\)0.501 \\
2 & 3 & \(-\)0.002 & 0.013 & 35,128.999 & 0.859 & \(-\)0.027 & 0.023 \\  & 4 & \(-\)0.295 * & 0.013 & 35,129.017 & 0. Figure 1: The total trajectories of all tonal combinations. Group 1 represents the data from L1-dominant Polish speakers learning Mandarin (L2), whereas group 2 represents those from TM natives. The 95% confidence intervals were shown according to the tonal trajectories of each group. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(I) Position**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(J) Position**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mean Difference (I-J)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Std. Error**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Sig.**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**95\% Confidence Interval for Difference \({}^{\text{c}}\)**} \\ \cline{5-8} \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Coding B**} & & & & & **Lower Bound** & **Upper Bound** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{1} & 2 & 0.417 \({}^{\text{*}}\) & 0.013 & 0.000 & 0.391 & 0.442 \\  & 3 & 0.543 \({}^{\text{*}}\) & 0.013 & 0.000 & 0.518 & 0.568 \\  & 4 & 0.279 \({}^{\text{*}}\) & 0.013 & 0.000 & 0.254 & 0.304 \\  & 1 & \(-\)0.417 \({}^{\text{*}}\) & 0.013 & 0.000 & \(-\)0.442 & \(-\)0.391 \\
2 & 3 & 0.126 \({}^{\text{*}}\) & 0.013 & 0.000 & 0.101 & 0.151 \\  & 4 & \(-\)0.137 \({}^{\text{*}}\) & 0.013 & 0.000 & \(-\)0.162 & \(-\)0.112 \\  & 1 & \(-\)0.543 \({}^{\text{*}}\) & 0.013 & 0.000 & \(-\)0.568 & \(-\)0.518 \\
3 & 2 & \(-\)0.126 \({}^{\text{*}}\) & 0.013 & 0.000 & \(-\)0.151 & \(-\)0.101 \\  & 4 & \(-\)0.263 \({}^{\text{*}}\) & 0.013 & 0.000 & \(-\)0.288 & \(-\)0.238 \\  & 1 & \(-\)0.279 \({}^{\text{*}}\) & 0.013 & 0.000 & \(-\)0.304 & \(-\)0.254 \\
4 & 2 & 0.137 \({}^{\text{*}}\) & 0.013 & 0.000 & 0.112 & 0.162 \\  & 3 & 0.263 \({}^{\text{*}}\) & 0.013 & 0.000 & 0.238 & 0.288 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Pairwise comparisons of tones in second syllable.