|
February 16, 2026 
|
|
|
The concept of “love languages” first appeared in a 1992 book by a Southern Baptist pastor, Gary Chapman, whose work was inspired by his own marital struggles (a powerful testimonial: He is still married). There are five formal love languages, according to Mr. Chapman: words of affirmation, quality time, gifts, acts of service and physical touch. These days, the definition of the concept has broadened to describe flirting styles, e.g. sarcasm and shared screenshots of Mini solving times. In an interview with The New York Times, Mr. Chapman attributed the friction early in his marriage to a difference in love languages. But could there have been a linguistic element at play, too? He described how he had expressed his love for his wife effusively and ad infinitum: “I would tell her, over and over, ‘I love you, I love you, I love you.’” It was the repetition of the phrase, seemingly, that made Ms. Chapman feel as if it rang hollow: “One night she said to me, ‘You keep saying, I love you, but if you love me, why don’t you help me?’”
When I spoke with Brianne Hughes, a historical linguist, for a recent Times feature about slang, she explained that words naturally undergo a process of “semantic bleaching”: the more often they’re used, the less potent they are. “‘Awesome’ used to be about being in the presence of a deity, and now it’s like, ‘Oh, more pizza, awesome,’” Ms. Hughes said. Semantic bleaching accounts for our use of “literally” to intensify already hyperbolic phrases, and explains why “very” doesn’t seem so very anymore. In the Chapmans’ case, “I love you” may have suffered its own intracouple bleaching, losing power by dint of repetition. Even the term “love language” is semantically diminished, since it can just be tacos. Note that this is distinct from the phenomenon of “semantic satiation,” which is what happens when you hear a word or phrase so many times that it temporarily loses all meaning. So unless Mr. Chapman was literally — hah! — following his wife around, saying “I love you, I love you, I love you,” I doubt satiation played a role.
For those whose capital-L love language is words of affirmation, the semantics of “I love you” may be secondary. In fact, repetition of the phrase may be what strengthens its effects, rather than erodes them. I keep a “Compliments” folder on my desktop filled with nice messages I’ve received from readers over the years, and it’s because I want to have that repetition at my disposal; flatter, rinse, repeat.
Cryptogram
