Nir & Berman (2010) proposed a clause packaging approach with five main categories of syntactic complexity and 20 subcategories, exemplifying each to index the development of linguistic measurements in an increasingly advanced and professional manner. They ranked the five structures with Greek alphabets from I to V, as follows, and the 20 subcategories with English alphabet hierarchies.
- I Iso Taxis = ‘equal organization’: isolating (autonomous clauses)
- II Symmetric Parataxis = ‘side by side organization’: stringing of clauses
- III Asymmetric Parataxis = ‘partial equivalence’: dependent stringing
- IV Hypotaxis = ‘one under the other’: layering of clauses
- V Endo Taxis = ‘one inside the other’: nesting of clauses (p. 151-152).
Since the English alphabet hierarchies were sources of questions for many academic researchers, we decided to survey the 20 structures and investigate the possibility of ranking syntactic complexity architectures.
We invite linguists and English teachers to fill out a survey about syntactic complexity architecture at https://forms.gle/QG6CcvshoUiYedPA8. This short survey comprises five syntactic complexity items that take 20 minutes to complete, followed by six demographic questions that take two minutes.
Please feel free to discuss the survey or Nir & Berman's (2010) syntactic hierarchies for clause packaging.
Reference: Nir, B., & Berman, R. A. (2010). Complex syntax as a window on contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(3), 744-765.
The following responses to the survey reflect a reasoned evaluation of these subcategories, considering both cognitive load and second language acquisition (SLA) developmental evidence.
Iso-Taxis (ISO)
- Lone clauses (3a): Learners acquire these first; they are pragmatically complete but syntactically minimal.
Example: The dog chased the cat. [ISO]
- Main clauses (3b): Slightly more complex, requiring full subject–predicate realization and tense-aspect marking. [ISO-MC]
Example: Within my research laboratory, there are certain times …
📌 Discussion: While both are early structures, the controversy here is minimal. Lone clauses represent discourse-level independence, whereas main clauses demonstrate control over canonical English clausal architecture.
Symmetric Parataxis (S-PAR)
- Juxtaposed clauses (4a): Require minimal syntactic marking, relying on pragmatic inference.
Example: My friend’s perspective was [ISO = MC] that the individual was being treated too harshly. It was his view [S-PAR = JUX] that a more thorough investigation plus a more lenient judgment may have been better.
- Same-subject coordination (4b): Demands connector use but benefits from shared subject reference.
Example: We both exchanged less than optimal tones with each other [ISO =MC] and the conflict or tension was all too evident [S-PAR = DS]
- Different-subject coordination (4b): Heavier load, as learners must maintain agreement and thematic roles across clauses.
Example: I next considered [ISO = MC] knocking on the person’s door . . . but I decided against this also [S-PAR = SS].
📌 Discussion: Debate arises over whether same- vs. different-subject coordination is harder. Some argue connectors (“and,” “but”) are acquired late, complicating same-subject coordination. Others see managing multiple subjects as more cognitively demanding. The ranking places different-subject coordination as the highest in complexity due to increased referential demands.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing