Focus versus Denial: A Pragma-linguistic Analysis of the Black Lives Matter and All Lives Matter Formulas

This article focuses on the force of the slogan “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) in the light of what came as a repudiation to it, All Lives Matter (ALM). Adopting a pragma-linguistic perspective, it evinces to what extent ALM is an act of (conscious or unconscious) misinterpretation. Indeed, the gap could not be wider between the illocutionary force of the slogan as intended by the BLM movement’s advocates (Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi) and its perlocutionary effect on certain Americans that felt compelled to brandish the universalist ALM. Through a linguistic and pragmatic analysis of these three words, including the way “Black Lives Matter” has been prosodically mispronounced, the article demonstrates that ALM is semantically inclusive but pragmatically exclusive and can be construed as a condensed version of “color blindness” or “epistemological ignorance.” Gathering the scientific research published so far on the two formulations and the public reactions about them, it highlights the evasive and violent denial that the All Lives Matter “response” embodies in its very form, forcing BLM champions in turn to justify their slogans. Finally, taking a short passage of a 2020 interview of then Vice President Mike Pence as an illustration of the pragmatic arguments made so far, the article emphasizes that the alignments generated by the BLM and ALM slogans are respectively that of solidarity versus polarization.