The article aims to identify the specific features of anthroponym perception in the linguistic consciousness of native speakers and to analyze the factors influencing the functioning of personal names within communicative, social, and cultural contexts. The object of the study is anthroponyms as units of onomastic vocabulary, while the subject is the process of perception, comprehension, and use of anthroponyms in various sociocommunicative situations. To achieve the stated goal, the research employs several methods, including comparative, descriptive, interpretative, and content analysis. The scientific novelty of the study lies in its interdisciplinary approach to the analysis of anthroponyms at the intersection of linguistics, psychology, and social communication. The paper outlines the theoretical foundations of perception and explores terminological variation in the use of the concepts “perception”, “sensation”, “perceptual processing”, and “understanding”. A model for analyzing anthroponyms through the lens of psychological processes is proposed, encompassing physical recognition, perception, cognitive interpretation, and evaluation. Special attention is paid to the concept of social perception, including dictionary definitions and typological forms. The study further elaborates on categories such as self-concept, perception of others, and impression management, illustrated by examples from actual language practice, particularly social media excerpts. These examples demonstrate how speakers adapt the form of anthroponyms based on how they perceive themselves, their interlocutors, and the social image they aim to project. The research emphasizes that applying such an approach reveals anthroponyms as significant elements of social interaction that construct and transmit perceptions of identity. The proposed interdisciplinary framework deepens our understanding of the role of personal names in communicative practices and presents promising directions for further onomastic research.
Оксана Чорноус (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: