Chapman's ideas have drawn both positive appreciation and severe critique. From the concepts Chapman illustrates, that it is the responsibility of the partner to try and understand the primary language of their spouse. Every complaint heaps blame on your spouse so much that one must work extra hard to meet most needs and demands. (Egbert & Polk, 2006). Chapman subscribes to the school of thought that the partners should provide it all.  Egbert & Polk argue that, if a partner does not like something, then it is simple as that and there is no need to embark on the treacherous journey of learning a primary language to correct a simple mistake (2006).

The author also fails to acknowledge that compatibility in marriage is critical for love to exist. Chapman leaves out the fact that two people cannot walk hand in hand unless they agree (Cook et al., 2013). The connotation derived from his work is that some sort of judgment is directed to those who walk out of their marriages due to unhappiness. The author believes that there is no way out of wedlock other than persevering and making it work regardless of circumstances such as forced or arranged marriages. Chapman sells the idea that if marriage or a relationship fails to work, then the couple should only blame themselves for failure. Cook et al., argue that Chapman fails to recognize other external uncontrollable factors that play a part in the success or doom in marriages such as distance, incompatibility, and other factors (2013).

The book faces criticism of its glorifying of the physical activities that make a marriage work, with the idea that marriage should be saved mainly through actions. Compatibility is key to the success of any relationship between people in love. People should take time to learn and study their ability to be compatible with their partners. Compatibility with your spouse saves you from the laborious and tedious work of making every little forced activity work (Egbert & Polk, 2006). Chapman is steadfast in his belief that one should try to make their marriage work at all costs. He suggests that the failure in marriage rests entirely in their actions and efforts of the couple.

Egbert & Polk both agree that the author leaves out the importance of choosing your partner wisely before marriage (2013).  Chapman advocates for domesticity in failed marriages and that people should strive to remain in the doomed relationship even when things are not working. He sells a dangerous ideology that simply loving an unlovely spouse keeps them from doing nasty things to you. The concept of loving someone enough so that they reciprocate with respect and passion is misleading (Egbert & Polk, 2013). This advocates that people should tolerate abuse in marriage, even emotional maltreatment but continue showering their partner in love with the hope of changing their behavior. This also means that if a husband is being unfair or potentially abusive, it is due to the shortcomings of the wife for not loving him dutifully. Chapman teaches people to be victims of abuse in marriage by giving the notion that if one gets mistreated, it is because they are not doing enough to learn their partner's primary love language. The partner in the wrong being blameless.

Cook et al. argue that for couples to remain in love, they need tools other than just the emotional love language. Relationships need honesty, trust, integrity, consciousness, commitment, fun and continued growth, qualities without which a relationship remains rooted and unhappy (2013). If a partner communicates in your preferred love language as promoted, but fails to uphold honesty, commitment and positive intentions, the marriage would still suffer terribly. When two people don't share similar values and dedication, the marriage becomes futile even with the application of the languages of love that will fail to the patch up the failures of the relationship (Cook et al., 2013). Relationships are built and founded on various fundamental, multifaceted factors which require more than a common love language to maintain positivity.

Gary Chapman also faces criticism on the fact that one’s love language is not rigid or constant throughout a person's life and the language is bound to change, as do our personalities. The author ought to have given exceptions on the lifetime of his love languages (Egbert & Polk, 2013). For instance, for someone who has cancer, if their primary love language is receiving gifts, then after being diagnosed, they will need another form of support such as words of affirmation to help one cope with the disease. It means that people cannot subscribe to just one emotional love language. People face different circumstances in a marriage that warrant different responses, be it a service, physical touch, words or quality time. The book struggles to defend the static nature of love, undermining the dynamic tendency of people’s needs.

Chapman ideas stunt relationships and prevent intimacy since partners concentrate on trying to be loved back more than anything else. (Egbert & Polk, 2006). The book preaches co-dependence which the author presumes is the language of love. Gary Chapman unconsciously champions the ideology that a happy marriage is one in which partners depend upon each other to feel loved, contented and wanted. The book based on the theory that partners should rely on each other's actions to meet each other's emotional quota.