backshifting - Reported speech: unnecessary past tense?

The following is an excerpt from a textbook in Korea. I'm wondering if this is an unnecessary past tense for the reported speech--or possibly wrong.

When I moved to Korea, one of the first things my coworker taught me
was how to say my address. I didn't understand why it was so
important. They explained that I'd often give it over the phone when I
ordered things to be delivered.

Is the past tense necessary at all? Ordering food over the phone is not a one-time event and there is all likelihood that the writer will order more food in the future--not to mention that I'd never explain it like that. (I'd just say "You'll need it when you order food.)

What do you guys think?

Answer

• They explained [that I would often give it over the phone when I ordered things to be delivered].

Let's imagine this, that last week your coworker(s) said something like this to you:

• "Because you will often give it over the phone when you order things to be delivered."

Now you are reporting to us (the readers) what had been said. There are two common choices:

1. They explained [that I will often give it over the phone when I order things to be delivered].




2. They explained [that I would often give it over the phone when I ordered things to be delivered].

In #1, the reported indirect speech has not been backshifted; while in #2 (which is the same as your original example), the reported indirect speech has been backshifted. (Note: backshifting involves replacing a present-tense verb with a preterite, which is a past-tense verb.)

Without any surrounding context--that is, just looking at those two versions alone on a white sheet of paper--both versions would seem to be grammatical. I'd think that the #2 version with the backshift would be the default, and there would have to be a specific reason why the speaker would intentionally use the #1 version (the non-backshifted version).

Backshifting in a subordinate clause can occur when either one of the following conditions is true:

• A.) The tense of the matrix clause is a type of past-tense.





• B.) The time of the matrix clause situation is in the past time sphere.

In your case, both of those conditions are true--the matrix clause is "They explained X", and it uses the preterite "explained" and it is about a situation that occurred in the past. And so, backshifting can occur.

In general, depending on the purpose of the sentence, there can be a preference for either the non-backshifted version or for the backshifted version. Sometimes the non-backshifted version might be considered to be "much more widely appropriate" than the backshifted version. Sometimes the backshifted version is obligatory.

For more info on backshifting, here is a related post, which also includes pointers to other related posts: