Complex sentences with when and until in reported speech – a problem with back-shift

Question

Could anyone explain to me why, according to the key provided by my teacher, sentences below should be rendered in reported speech with no back-shift of certain verbs:

1. "When I first came here," Susan said, "I had a hard time with the language, but now that I've been here for five years, I find I can get on very well"

Susan explained that she had had a hard time with the language when she first went there, but since she had been there for five years she found that she could get on very well.

I can't figure out why past simple is maintained here. I would translate it as: " when she first had gone there". Why am I wrong?

2. "I couldn't believe my ears when I heard they'd split up," she said to me. "Could you phone Jane to see if it's really true?"

She told me that she couldn't believe her ears when she heard that they had split up, and asked me if I could phone Jane to see if it was really true.

Why not: "when she had heard"?

3. "Shall I pass on the news," I asked him, "or would you prefer I didn't until you've had a chance to see them?"

I asked him if I should pass on the news or if he would prefer I didn't until he had had a chance to see them.

Again, why does "didn't" remain unchanged?

Does it have something to do with words "when" and "until"?

I will be glad for your help.

All examples come from "CPE Use of English. Examination Practice" by Virginia Evans, Express Publishing 1998, p. 84, 85.

Answer 1

“When I first came here,” Susan said, “I had a hard time with the language, but now that I’ve been here for five years, I find I can get on very well.”

Susan said that when she first went there she had had a hard time with the language, but because of the fact she had been there for five years since then, she found she could get on very well.

'first came here' signifies a particular time period. so,the verb is not changed here. instead we use another word but with the same tense.

Answer 2

It's because in instances where had is used is really only necessary when it's describing actions that completed, are concurrent with another action, or actions where the effects have changed. When had is unnecessary, it's usually dropped.

I would translate it as: " when she first had gone there". Why am I wrong?

had gone is an idiom that means the same thing as went. If had gone was used, it would imply that she had returned to her original home - the had potentially modifying the action of being away to show that her absense was in the past.

Why not: "when she had heard"? So this is a little tricky. Had before an action often means the action has ended or its effects have changed. Hearing the news put her in a state of disbelief, which continues as she asks the narrator to call Jane. Heard here means received gossip, rather than interpreted auditory noise. As the action of receiving gossip famously cannot be retracted, and she is still surprised, adding had wouldn't be confusing but it is unnecessary.

why does "didn't" remain unchanged? It's really more about the verb to do and how it interacts with had and not. So if you're thinking it should be hadn't instead of didn't, that's a subtle but important difference. Hadn't in this context is short for had not done - referring to something that had not occurred in the past. Had would modify the action, making it something that had occurred in the past, rather than something that could have occurred or will occur. The action of spreading the news would have to had happened, rather than being a hypothetical option.

In this scenario, using had would mean that the action (spreading the news) was completed, as in, It had been done, and if the narrator had spread the news, the subject might say I wish you hadn't done that, I wish that hadn't happened. I would have prefered it if you hadn't done that

Whereas didn't would be short for did not do. Since the narrator uses didn't, that means the narrator did not do the action, and maintains the option to do or not do the action. Do on its own almost always refers to current action or action that will or can occur in the future. Since the narrator has not yet completed the action of spreading the news, it's a question of will he do the thing or not do the thing, instead of had done or had not done the action.

Answer 3

"When I first came here," Susan said, "I had a hard time with the language, but now that I've been here for five years, I find I can get on very well".

Semantically, this sentence is reported speech- it describes what Susan said- but it's not reported speech in the grammatical sense. What Susan said is enclosed in quotes, which means that the text in quotes is exactly what Susan said- no backshifting. It only becomes reported speech in the grammatical sense when you remove the quotes... then backshifting is necessary.

Susan said that, when she had first come here, she had had a hard time with the language, but now that she'd been here for five years, she found that she could get on very well.

That said, most people would still say "when she first came here": this is because, according to this article, simple past and past continuous do not normally change in sentences that begin with when or if.

The same applies for your second and third examples: remove the quotes and backshifting becomes necessary.