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?

  • 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. Commented Aug 29, 2013 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" languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2639
    – nohat
    Commented Aug 29, 2013 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. Commented Aug 30, 2013 at 0:49
  • @JohnLawler I know it isn’t English, but Spanish considers such things gerunds.
    – tchrist
    Commented Aug 30, 2013 at 2:57
  • 1
    @JohnLawler: I would sooner expect you to eat your hat than submit to Gerundive Acceptionism, have no fear! Commented Aug 30, 2013 at 19:43

3 Answers 3


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.

  • 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
    Commented Aug 30, 2013 at 2:38
  • 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. Commented Aug 30, 2013 at 2:40
  • 1
    What about going home? Commented Aug 30, 2013 at 8:02
  • 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. Commented Aug 30, 2013 at 13:17
  • 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. Commented Aug 31, 2013 at 5:12

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.

  • 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. Commented Jan 18, 2015 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
    Commented Jan 18, 2015 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. Commented Jan 18, 2015 at 15:58
  • @EdwinAshworth - Sorry, I don't understand. Something of your sentence seems to be lacking.
    – rogermue
    Commented Jan 18, 2015 at 16:02
  • I'm allowed 5 minutes to edit. Usually. Commented Jan 18, 2015 at 16:03

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.

  • 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 English Language Learners, 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. Commented Mar 3, 2019 at 0:04
  • 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
    Commented Mar 7, 2019 at 23:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.