As we know, the English language uses the passive voice to give emphasis to sentence elements other than just the doer of the action. The passive voice gives us the option to make the indirect object, direct object, or the act itself the logical focus of the statement, allowing us to free our prose every so often from the confining straightjacket of the active voice. For instance, instead of writing a tortured active-voice sentence like “Builders built Rome not just in a single day,” we can write this passive-voice sentence instead to say it more smoothly, elegantly: “Rome wasn’t built in a day.”
Still, there are times when we just feel that even the passive voice falls short of giving us the desired emphasis. That’s when we take recourse to a peculiar grammar device that we learn early on probably without even realizing it. That device is the
cleft sentence, so-called because it “cleaves” or splits a single-clause sentence into two clauses for semantic emphasis or style. It is the written equivalent of giving an edge to our voice to call attention to the most important points of what we are saying.
Cleft sentences take two common forms. The first is
the “it” cleft, which exhibits the pattern “
It +
be + [subject of focus] + [action or defining clause],” as in “
It was the accusers themselves who fudged the data.” The other is
the pseudo-cleft or “wh-” cleft, which normally takes the form “
Wh- + [subject] + [verb] + [form of be] + [rest of predicate],” as in “
What she did was a wonderful thing.” Both depart from the usual declarative form to achieve a stronger, defensive emphasis. (The straightforward form of the “it” cleft above is, of course, “The accusers themselves fudged the data”; that of the “wh-” cleft is, “She did a wonderful thing.”)
The “it” cleft. In this sentence construction, the often-derided “empty” function word “it” works to highlight an object of special focus, or theme. In the process, the sentence assumes the tone and form of a statement seeking to correct someone’s wrong idea. The negator “no” or “not,” if unstated, can normally be presumed to precede it. For instance, someone may have just said this pointedly: “The accused, Your Honor, fudged the data.” The defensive—perhaps outraged—reply would likely be an “it” cleft: “No, Your Honor,
it was the accusers themselves who fudged the data.”
An “it”-cleft sentence always has a dependent clause introduced by the subordinators “that,” “who,” or none at all, and that dependent clause normally ends the sentence for emphasis: “It was her
that I wanted all along.” “It is Alberto
who can make things possible for us.” “No, my dear,
it is our son [that’s] sleeping on the sofa.” By some peculiar language alchemy, the “it”-cleft achieves a double emphasis: one for the cleft’s theme, and the other for the chosen end-focus. In the examples above, it is the following idea-pairs that get emphasis: “her”/”I wanted all along”; “Alberto”/”can make things possible for us”; and “our son”/”sleeping on the sofa.”
Like the plain passive-voice construction, the “it”-cleft gives wide latitude in emphasizing the actor, the indirect or direct object, or the act itself in the scheme of things. Take this simple declarative: “The judge gave the erring lawyer a sharp rebuke.” Look at just three of the “if”-cleft forms that sentence could take: “
It was the judge that gave the erring lawyer a sharp rebuke.” “
It was the erring lawyer that the judge sharply rebuked.” “
It was a sharp rebuke [that] the erring lawyer got from the judge.” All revolve around the same idea, but with different shades of meaning.
The pseudo-cleft or “wh-” cleft. This construction takes both the main verb and theme (main idea) of the sentence, fashions them into a noun clause, and uses that noun clause to begin the sentence. Instead of “it,” however, the pseudo-cleft uses “what” to introduce that clause. By an alchemy similar to the “it”-cleft’s, the pseudo-cleft allows us to create several variations of a statement to emphasize a different theme each time.
See what the pseudo-cleft can do to a simple declarative like, say, “We brought Eve some luscious fruits.” Emphasizing the direct object (“luscious fruits”) from the doer’s (“we”) standpoint: “
What we brought to Eve were luscious fruits.” Emphasizing the direct object from the doer’s standpoint, but less assertively: “
What were brought by us to Eve were luscious fruits.” Emphasizing the direct object from the receiver’s (“Eve’s”) standpoint: “
What Eve got from us were luscious fruits.” Emphasizing the action: “
What we did was to bring luscious fruits to Eve.” Emphasizing all the elements: “
What happened was that
we brought luscious fruits to Eve.” Note that a “wh-“ cleft’s theme is always a subordinate clause introduced by “what,” and is always the subject of a passive-voice sentence.
Clefts are potent, high-energy devices for achieving emphasis, but we must use them with restraint—certainly not as habitual forms of expressing ourselves. To overuse them is to trivialize not only the very things we want to emphasize but the rest of our prose as well. (February 11, 2004)
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times,
February 11, 2004 issue © 2004 by The Manila Times.
All rights reserved.-------
What do you think of my ideas in this essay? Click the Reply button to post your thoughts on Jose Carillo’s English Forum.
