What do Ancient Greek Personal Names tell us about the social stratification of the population of a city as Argos? And how do they inform about sociolinguistics and especially sociodialectology? To transpose Saussure's signifier/signified dichotomy to individual identity, we could say that it is for the most in its form (sound and graphic) that the name identifies the person, while the signified it conveys as a lexical transposition (or creation) contributes to its individuation. Is there room for social connotation in this scheme? Our study aims to discern the ways in which this type of connotation may have actually affected the name in both form and meaning, and what part dialectal coloration played in this. To this end, we will investigate: 1. To what extent would the most salient dialectal features have been avoided as socioculturally stigmatizing and perhaps incompatible with the high stylistic register that was often the aim, according indeed to what our sources show, which mainly feature the citizen elite. 2. If a preference emerges, as cities gradually open up to the outside world, until their inclusion in the Graeco-Roman oikoumene, for dialectally neutral, i. e. supradialectal names –i.e. roughly pan-Hellenic–, both formally and lexically. The theoretical challenge is to understand how there might be koineization of what was already in itself an anthroponymic koine, collateral in its substance, as a paralexicon, of that first koine featured by the Homeric language, on the model of which ancient Greek personal names were largely forged.