7

What is the function of swimming in the following sentence?

I went swimming with some friends yesterday.

Is swimming a gerund here? If it is, what is the grammatical function?

herisson
  • 81,803
Rhina Franco
  • 71
  • 4
    Swimming can be considered a gerund here; its function is as part of the serial verb construction go + Verb-ing, not to be confused with come + Verb-ing, go and Verb, etc. – John Lawler Aug 29 '13 at 21:51
  • 3
    FWIW, Huddleston and Pullum, in The Cambridge Grammar of the English language, argue that "A distinction between gerund and present participle can't be sustained" and use the combined term "gerund-participle" http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2639 – nohat Aug 29 '13 at 23:17
  • 1
    That's why I said it can be considered a gerund here. In this sentence, there are no stigmata to distinguish this idiomatic use as any one of the uses of Verb-ing words. – John Lawler Aug 30 '13 at 00:49
  • @JohnLawler I know it isn’t English, but Spanish considers such things gerunds. – tchrist Aug 30 '13 at 02:57
  • @tchrist: I believe the Spanish gerund is based on the ablative of the Latin gerund, which explains why it behaves adverbially in Spanish, rather than substantively / like noun, as in Latin. (The ablative is typically used to give an adverbial function to a noun, like adding the preposition in, during, at, etc. in English.) In English, if you accept the distinction, a gerund is an -ing form that functions like a noun (and can be replaced with one without breaking the syntax / predicate frame). – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Aug 30 '13 at 03:23
  • Unfortunately, there are several diffentiable -ing forms that function as nouns. The shooting of the hunters was unpleasant and Shooting the hunters was unpleasant do not necessarily mean the same thing, but in the first the shooting of the hunters is clearly a noun noun phrase, and in the second shooting the hunters is also clearly a noun phrase. Yet they are equally clearly different constructions. – John Lawler Aug 30 '13 at 04:30
  • @JohnLawler: Yes, absolutely. And that's a very interesting distinction. But it is a subdivision between different uses of the gerund, for Accepters. 'The X-ing of Y' vs just 'X-ing Y' : why are both 'the' and 'of' necessary together? – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Aug 30 '13 at 13:27
  • Ah, but I'm not an Accepter, it seems. Unless you mean that every -ing verb form is to called a Gerund, in which case one needs a special term for the one *I* call a gerund. – John Lawler Aug 30 '13 at 15:52
  • 1
    @JohnLawler: I would sooner expect you to eat your hat than submit to Gerundive Acceptionism, have no fear! – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Aug 30 '13 at 19:43
  • I would expect to eating my hat if I did. But seriously, I'd have to say that basing a usage term on a test like "is used as a noun" (with the inherent fuzziness of noun) is not a helpful move, without further subcategorization. I prefer flat taxonomies wherever they're appropriate; the search algorithms are simpler. – John Lawler Aug 30 '13 at 20:30
  • @JohnLawler: Certainly, I could analyse and define what I mean by "noun", but this didn't seem to be the right place. I also don't really think that would change my answer much, because it is a fairly distinct concept. That is, I don't think any of the words I called either adjectives or nouns that I used in my examples were controversial; nobody would call insane a noun in my example, nor trip an adjective. The test I proposed took the shape of "can be replaced with a noun while keeping syntactic function and semantic role intact"; I also think that is rather clear and effective. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Aug 30 '13 at 23:54

3 Answers3

6

This is admittedly a construction where the distinction between participles and gerunds is at its weakest. No grammatical distinction works out 100 % of the time. However, in traditional dependency grammar, this is probably analysed as a participle by most people. The reason for that choice is that it is very similar to the way the verb go can take predicative adjectives (to go insane, see below), and a participle is adjectival (whereas a gerund functions like a noun).

Those who accept a distinction between gerund and present participle in English agree that a gerund is like a noun, whereas a participle is like an adjective. A noun can be the direct object of a transitive verb, an adjective normally cannot; an adjective can modify a (pro)noun, which a noun normally cannot (except as a noun adjective, which is irrelevant to the construction in question).

You can go first, you can go berserk, you can go insane, you can go free, and you can go many other things. These words are all adjectival. The traditional term for this special use of adjectives with verbs of movement is predicative; it is akin to more common predicative expressions, like subject complements with copulae (to be first, appear insane) and object complements with certain verbs (to paint something black, to consider someone insane).

Predicative adjectives are analysed as a category of words that are on the one hand used as adjectives, in that they clearly ascribe a property to a noun or pronoun: in the dog went insane, the entity the dog acquires the property insane; but on the other hand they function like adverbs, in that they can be said to describe the "way" in which the verb happens: the insane dog went (i.e. with an attributive adjective) is not what you're saying when you say the dog went insane (predicative). The latter rather means "the dog went in such a way as to behave insanely" (adverbial), not *"there was an insane dog that went" (attributive).

Because to go berserk and to go swimming are similar in so many ways, swimming is best analysed as adjectival, so a participle rather than a gerund.

Can we find a way to analyse it as a gerund? Consider she began swimming. Here swimming is a gerund; is this not similar to she went swimming? Yes, and no.

You can say she began her trip. The verb begin can normally take an object (trip) with the semantic role of a Theme ("that which undergoes an action") or possibly a Manner or Purpose, depending on how you analyse the semantic role of trip. It is evident that she began her trip and she began swimming are very similar: both have a direct object, and the semantic role of the object seems identical. This "proves" that swimming is a gerund in she began swimming: it functions just like a noun.

But this does not work with go. You can go swimming, but you cannot go a trip. You cannot use a direct object as a goal or destination: you need a prepositional phrase instead, like on a trip, to Athens, after him. How can swimming be a gerund if you cannot replace it with a noun in the same syntactical position (direct object) with the same semantic role? Then you would have to posit a new, special predicate frame ("use of a verb with certain kinds of arguments") only for go + -ing.

The alternative is to compare the syntax and semantics of go swimming to go insane and treat them as the same construction: go + predicative adjective, where a participle can function as an adjective. That way, you can connect go + ing to something other than -ing forms, as opposed to the special predicate frame rejected above. I makes more sense and escapes Occam's Razor.

Cerberus - Reinstate Monica
  • 61,585
  • 1
    When people run out crying, leave laughing, show up singing, or come begging, I can almost see the -ing describing how they were doing those things in some sort of adverbial application. – tchrist Aug 30 '13 at 02:38
  • 1
    @tchrist: Hello. Yes, that is true. At the same time, you can also say that the property "crying" is ascribed to those people, when you say people run out crying. That combination of adjectival and adverbial is typical of predicative adjectives. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Aug 30 '13 at 02:40
  • @tchrist: Hence my "in such a way as to behave". – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Aug 30 '13 at 02:41
  • 1
    What about going home? – Bradd Szonye Aug 30 '13 at 08:02
  • 1
    @BraddSzonye: Yes, that one is interesting. But I don't think it is a direct object, since you can also be home. I would rather analyse home as an adverb of location there. And adverbs of location can sometimes also be used as adverbs of direction/destination: I am upstairs, I go upstairs; I am there, I go there. I would call the upstairs room, home delivery noun adjectives. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Aug 30 '13 at 13:17
  • That's my intuition too. I wonder whether there are other, similar examples. – Bradd Szonye Aug 30 '13 at 19:44
  • @BraddSzonye: Other examples of what, exactly? Of a verb of movement that can take a predicative adjective/participle or adverb of direction? – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Aug 30 '13 at 20:27
  • @BraddSzonye: Upstairs, there, a long way, underground...like that? – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Aug 31 '13 at 05:06
  • 1
    Yes, exactly. It looks like go won't take just any noun, but those are all examples of words that are more typically nouns than adverbs. – Bradd Szonye Aug 31 '13 at 05:12
  • 1
    @BraddSzonye: Yeah. But the verb be can take all of them: I am a long way from Rome, I am underground, etc. So they all function more like adverbial phrases of location with the verbs go, be, come, etc. So I would not take that to mean that go can normally take a noun as a direct object. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Aug 31 '13 at 13:38
1

I would say it clearly is a gerund because older forms show the remainder of a preposition prefixed to the gerund as in

1 We went a-hunting.

This can only be "We went to (the) hunting. German still has the comparable form in

2 Wir gingen zum Jagen (zum = zu dem).

Literal word-for-word translation: We went to the hunting ( no idiomatic English).

As to the sentence part of swimming it is an adverbial part indicating where to or better what for (indicating purpose).

You could transform the sentence into

3 We went off for the purpose of swimming.

rogermue
  • 13,878
  • But why take derivation as the deciding factor? I'd draw verbal similarities for the ing-forms between 'we were hunting', 'we started hunting', 'we went hunting'. In any case, the word 'gerund' isn't defined clearly enough to use it without clarification, as John Lawler explains above. It has conflicting definitions. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 18 '15 at 15:40
  • @Edwin Ashworth - "We were (a-)hunting is better seen as a gerund rather than a participle (though grammars consider it a participle). One understands the progressive form better when one interprets it as "We were in the act of hunting". By the way, German and above all German dialects have the same construction for progessiveness but with a preposition. There was never a participle construction. – rogermue Jan 18 '15 at 15:48
  • If 'grammarians consider it a participle', there is now. The whole nouny / verby / adjectivy morass surrounding the ing-form has been discussed here before. Quirk et al propose an umpteen-point (noun ... verb) gradience, based on analysis of modern usages / distribution, rather than on origins. 'We were hunting' is better seen as a participle rather than a more nounish entity. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 18 '15 at 15:58
  • @EdwinAshworth - Sorry, I don't understand. Something of your sentence seems to be lacking. – rogermue Jan 18 '15 at 16:02
  • I'm allowed 5 minutes to edit. Usually. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 18 '15 at 16:03
  • @EdwinAshworth - Well, that's the view of some grammarians and I can't help it. I consider the way to describe the system of language without looking at the historical development as narrow-minded and leading to wrong views. Contrary to views of some grammarians I see the progressive form as to be + gerund. – rogermue Jan 18 '15 at 16:08
  • I also consider any way describing the now system of language without looking at the historical development as narrow-minded. But I also see any way that doesn't acknowledge current accepted usage as more important as committing the etymological fallacy. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 18 '15 at 16:27
  • I presented my view for the sake of discussion. A lot of things in language can be seen in one way or another. Nobody is forced to accept my view. But I'm allowed to have my view. – rogermue Jan 18 '15 at 16:42
  • Would you like to continue in the chat-room? No, the two different views have been presented. – rogermue Jan 18 '15 at 18:57
  • I wish people would make it clear that it is their view they are putting forward rather than undisputed fact. 'We were hunting is better seen as a gerund rather than a participle' is an arrogation. Prompting my equally dictatorial "'We were hunting' is better seen as a participle rather than a more nounish entity." – Edwin Ashworth Jan 18 '15 at 19:09
  • Is "they went a-hunting" an arrogation or a fact? If this gerund construction is used in German, in Dutch, and even in Scandinavian languages, and we have old forms as a-hunting then I don't see why English should use a participle. Obviously grammarians hardly look to neighbouring languages. – rogermue Jan 18 '15 at 19:11
  • +1 Hey, this is the first time I have seen your answer. If indeed the construction was once clearly gerundial, then I agree with you and it is best considered a gerund after all. I think I read somewhere else that even constructions like I am swimming were originally gerundial! That is the diachronic-comparative analysis of the phaenomenon. Isolatedly, though, a participial analysis is still possible. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Mar 03 '19 at 05:11
-1

If we go back to the basics of subject/verb/object, we know that the subject is who or what the sentence is all about. The verb is what the subject is doing, while the direct object is who or what the subject is doing something to. The subject must always be a noun or pronoun, the verb is an action OR a state of being (the most common verb being ‘to be’), and the object is also a noun or pronoun.

While a gerund is an action noun (a verb plus ‘ing’), I prefer to think of it as an activity or sport. An easy example is the sentence: “I love baseball.” The subject is clearly “I”. So we ask, “What am ‘I’ doing? In this case, clearly I am ‘loving’ something. Therefore, ‘love’ is the verb. What am ‘I’ loving? Baseball.

For more ambiguous sentences, I employ the KISS system: Keep It Simple, Student.

While there is a lot of academic confusion and discussion over such sentences as “I am swimming”, I try to simplify it in the above terms. An easier example is “Swimming is fun.” Here, ‘swimming’, as the subject, is clearly an activity, so it’s a noun—a gerund. What is ‘swimming’ doing? It’s existing (‘to be’) as an activity that has a property, that property being ‘fun’, which is an ‘uncountable’ noun. Ergo, in “I am swimming”, ‘I’ is clearly the subject, ‘am’ is the verb showing the condition of performing an activity, and that activity is ‘swimming’. Due to our rule of subject/very/object, ‘swimming’ must be a noun, making it a gerund. But isn’t the subject actually performing that action? Yes, but in this case it’s still an activity. Make it easier by saying: “I went swimming.” Here, the action (or activity) was performed in the past, so the action was having gone to do something (‘went’), and that ‘something’ was the activity of swimming. Because ‘baseball’ is inherently an activity and cannot be made into a gerund, the sentence must be “I am playing baseball”, where ‘playing’ is the verb and ‘am’ the helping verb.

Furthermore, you can ‘go swimming’, but you cannot ‘go a trip’. Because the object must be ‘what the subject is doing something to’, you cannot use a direct object as a goal or destination. You must use a prepositional phrase instead, such as “go ‘on a trip’”. Once again, the simple explanation is because ‘trip’ is an inherent noun in this case (as opposed to the verb, ‘to trip’), whereas ‘swimming’ is a ‘created’ noun, a gerund. In light of that, a somewhat related area of confusion is “I am going crazy.” Here, ‘I’ am not literally ‘going’ anywhere. This is what is called an inchoative verb, which shows a change in state or condition. (That’s one of the reasons it’s critical to remember that a verb can be a state of being, not just an action.) Simpler examples are “He is falling asleep”, where ‘he’ is changing his state of being from awake to sleeping. Another is, “The leaves are turning brown”, where the leaves are changing their condition. In these cases, the verbs are not literal; they are inchoative.

Don Maker
  • 1
  • 1
    Hi Don, welcome to EL&U. I'm not quite sure if going "back to the basics" adds to the sophisticated analysis that the existing two answers provide. It could be a useful approach on our sister site [ell.se], but our site is "for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts" who welcome a deeper analysis. -1 for your argument that I am swimming contains a gerund. – Chappo Hasn't Forgotten Mar 03 '19 at 00:04
  • Thanks for the explanation, Chappo. I certainly mistook this for a lay site, without having investigated closely. The only thing I could add from a linguistics standpoint is a comment on someone's assertion that 'going' (as in 'going crazy') was "go + predicative adjective". Actually, when 'ing' is added to a verb which does not signify the progressive tense, it is generally an inchoative verb, which shows a change in state or condition. Other examples are "falling asleep" and "the leaves are turning color". Nouns can also be inchoative, as in "The flower began to blossom." – Don Maker Mar 07 '19 at 23:42