Does a party have a duty to clarify or amplify language in an instruction?

(2d ed. 1982) p. 249.)" (In re M.S. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 698, 719, italics and footnote omitted.) The term "cause in fact," as used in this instruction, has no particular legal meaning giving rise to a duty to clarify it sua sponte. "'A party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language.' [Citation.]" (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 671.) Clemena did not request a clarifying instruction.