Cleft Sentences 2: Focus, Assumptions and Correction
By the end: I can choose a cleft that corrects exactly the disputed element, recognise its background framing and avoid implying more than the evidence supports.
Try the activities, then check your answers.
Try the activities, then check your answers.
Choose a short recording.
Before you start
Compare It was Noor who changed the date with It was the date that Noor changed. What does each invite the listener to treat as background?
Useful background: C1 Cleft Sentences 1; reporting stance and information structure.
Separate the correction from the background
An it-cleft normally highlights one element while presenting a related proposition as background for the exchange. The background may be shared, newly introduced or disputed. It is a conversational framing, not proof that the proposition is true.
It was Noor who changed the date, not Maya.
It was the date that Noor changed, not the room.
Match the focus to the actual dispute
A person-focused cleft and an object-focused cleft can describe the same event but answer different questions. Correcting the wrong element may leave the real misunderstanding untouched or introduce a new assumption.
It was on Tuesday that Noor sent the notice.
What Noor changed was the date; the room stayed the same.
Attach the time to the event actually dated
It was on Tuesday that Noor sent the notice targets the time of sending.
The dossier does not specify when she made this change.
Do not add exclusivity or blame without support
In a contrastive context a cleft may suggest an exhaustive or exclusive answer, but context matters. Words such as only make exclusion explicit and can strengthen the message. A neutral attributed report may be safer when the event itself is unverified.
It was Noor who sent this notice; Maya sent a different one.
According to the draft log, Noor changed the date.
Guided practice
Say or write your answer first. Compare the meaning and form; the model is one possible answer.
1. The dispute is who changed the date. Choose a cleft that targets the disputed element, then state its background.
Compare a model and explanation
It was Noor who changed the date. The exchange treats a date-change event as background.
The focus is the actor, while the event is framed as already relevant; the construction itself is not evidence.
2. The dispute is what Noor changed. Use an it-cleft and a what-cleft.
Compare a model and explanation
It was the date that Noor changed. What Noor changed was the date.
Both focus the object of the change rather than the person.
3. The date-change log has not been verified. Rewrite It was Noor who changed the date without treating its account as settled.
Compare a model and explanation
The unverified log identifies Noor as the person who changed the date.
Attribution and verification status matter more than retaining a cleft at any cost.
4. Read the notice dossier. Correct Maya changed the room on Monday with two sentences that preserve all verified distinctions.
Compare a model and explanation
Noor changed the date, not the room. It was on Tuesday that she sent the revised notice.
The dossier separates the change from the sending time; do not claim the change itself occurred Tuesday unless stated.
5. Explain the problem with It was on Tuesday that Noor changed the date when the only dated event is sending the notice.
Compare a model and explanation
It transfers the known sending date to a different event, the date change.
A fluent focus structure can still attach time to the wrong event.
6. Assess Only Noor sent a notice against the dossier.
Compare a model and explanation
It is unsupported and conflicts with Maya’s separate reminder. The source supports Noor sent the revised notice.
Exclusivity must be evaluated within the correct domain.
7. Give a narrower, supported only-statement about the room and date.
Compare a model and explanation
Of the date and room, only the date was changed.
The source explicitly distinguishes the changed date from the unchanged room; the domain is limited.
8. Explain how a person-cleft could be pragmatically unhelpful when everyone already agrees on the actor but disputes the recipient.
Compare a model and explanation
It highlights settled information. A recipient-focused correction, such as It was the tutors that Noor contacted, would target the actual dispute if that recipient is supported.
Grammaticality does not guarantee relevance to the question under discussion.
A short conversation
Listen first if you can, then open the transcript when useful.
Open the conversation transcript
A: So it was Maya who changed the room on Monday?
B: No. Noor changed the date, not the room. And Tuesday is when she sent the revised notice; the log doesn’t date the change itself.
A: Then I’ll write that only Noor sent a notice.
B: That would go too far. Maya sent a separate reminder. It was Noor who sent this revised notice, not every notice in the project.
Listening checks
Listen to each extract or open its transcript. These three questions have their own score.
Mastery quiz
Choose the best answer in each situation. Your score is out of eight.
Use it in your own words
Speaking task 1
Correct the mistaken account Maya changed the room on Monday using the dossier. Use two focus structures, but do not transfer a date to the wrong event.
Reveal a possible response
It was the date that Noor changed, not the room. It was on Tuesday that she sent the revised notice; the record doesn’t tell us when she made the change. Maya sent a separate reminder later.
Success check: Correct actor, object and time while preserving the undated event and the separate messages.
Speaking task 2
Compare an overconfident cleft, an attributed report and a verified corrective cleft.
Reveal a possible response
It was Noor who changed the date frames the change as background. The unverified log identifies Noor keeps the source limit visible. Once the record is verified, a corrective cleft can be appropriate when someone names the wrong actor.
Success check: Explain the role of evidence and context rather than treating one construction as inherently dishonest.
Speaking task 3
Respond to a listener who draws an overbroad only-inference from your correction.
Reveal a possible response
I meant that Noor sent this particular revised notice. I wasn’t saying that she was the only person who sent any message; Maya sent a separate reminder.
Success check: Narrow the domain explicitly and repair the inference without contradicting the supported original claim.
Take it with you
I can choose a cleft that corrects exactly the disputed element, recognise its background framing and avoid implying more than the evidence supports.