Complexity  of  knowledge  practices  is  undertheorized  in  education  research  because  knowledge is often conceived cognitively. Legitimation Code Theory conceptualizes this com-plexity in terms of ‘semantic density’, which explores how meanings are interrelated within practices. This concept is becoming widely enacted in research, a flexibility that raises the question of identifying ‘semantic density’ in specific objects of study. This is the second of two papers that offer a ‘translation device’ for identifying ‘epistemic-semantic density’ (whe-re condensed meanings are formal definitions or empirical descriptions) in English discourse. The first paper (this issue) provided tools for exploring how individual words reveals different strengths of epistemic-semantic density. Those concepts revealed different degrees of com-plexity of knowledge. This paper outlines tools for exploring how the ways actors combine words reveals ‘epistemological condensation’ or strengthening of epistemic-semantic densi-ty. It provides typologies for identifying different kinds of ‘clausing’ and ‘sequencing’ and des-cribes how these types manifest varying degrees of increasing complexity. These concepts reveal different kinds of knowledge-building. Two contrasting examples, from a secondary school History classroom and a scientific research article, are analysed to illustrate the in-sights into complexity offered by the tools outlined in both papers.Complexity  of  knowledge  practices  is  undertheorized  in  education  research  because  knowledge is often conceived cognitively. Legitimation Code Theory conceptualizes this com-plexity in terms of ‘semantic density’, which explores how meanings are interrelated within practices. This concept is becoming widely enacted in research, a flexibility that raises the question of identifying ‘semantic density’ in specific objects of study. This is the second of two papers that offer a ‘translation device’ for identifying ‘epistemic-semantic density’ (whe-re condensed meanings are formal definitions or empirical descriptions) in English discourse. The first paper (this issue) provided tools for exploring how individual words reveals different strengths of epistemic-semantic density. Those concepts revealed different degrees of com-plexity of knowledge. This paper outlines tools for exploring how the ways actors combine words reveals ‘epistemological condensation’ or strengthening of epistemic-semantic densi-ty. It provides typologies for identifying different kinds of ‘clausing’ and ‘sequencing’ and des-cribes how these types manifest varying degrees of increasing complexity. These concepts reveal different kinds of knowledge-building. Two contrasting examples, from a secondary school History classroom and a scientific research article, are analysed to illustrate the in-sights into complexity offered by the tools outlined in both papers.