Who is to be considered a speaker in macropragmatics

Pragmatics is typically understood as the study of relationship between the subject and the sign system. Therefore, identifying the subject is a crucial issue that influences the development of this field. However, it is still common to limit the concept of the subject in pragmatics to observable entities, primarily the speaker. The limitations of this approach become particularly evident in the study of suprapersonal communication, where institutions or imaginary communities serve as communicators . This paper aims to identify the pragmatic characteristics of interlocutors in suprapersonal communication. Сonsider the formation of pragmatics, and the further distinction between macro- and micropragmatics as well between branches of pragmatics such as intercultural, cross-cultural, and socio-cultural pragmatics. As a result of the analysis of these concepts, supported by the consideration of specific cases of non-personalized communication, I conclude that it is necessary to change the approach to the subject by introducing the concept of “imaginary communicant”. This can be seen as a development of Charles Pierce’s approach to semantics as a result of the interaction of a quasi-speaker and a quasi-interpreter welded within the sign . Additionally, I suggest a new distinction between macro- and megapragmatics. The term macropragmatics can be applied to situations where communication agents are identifiable with specific institutional entities acting as “speaking persons”. This makes it possible to transcend back to real individuals. This concept should be distinguished from “megapragmatics,” which pertains to global imagined entities endowed with semiotic selves, such as nations, cultures, or societies. The study contributes to a better understanding of how the concept of the interlocutor applies to suprapersonal levels of intercultural and sociocultural communication and what semiotic characteristics it can be endowed with on the macropragmatic level.