I don't think so. Mathematicians don't think of "f(x)" as evaluation or application, but as the value of the function f at x. The "at" is very important, becaus

I don't think so. Mathematicians don't think of "f(x)" as evaluation or application, but as the value of the function f at x. The "at" is very important, because we generally deal with numerical functions that have well-defined geometric graphs, and even for other functions, we retain the graphical metaphors even if they may not apply anymore. We don't generally think of "f(x)" as a computation is what I mean. We discuss functions all the time whose values we agree will exist but cannot be computed (for example, a choice function that we obtained via the axiom of choice). We also don't generally pass functions around to other functions, and we don't care about syntax that much. After all, we are not computers, so we are quite comfortable changing syntax around according to habit and custom, even happily using ambiguous syntax when we think that our readers can figure out what we mean. So, no. We don't have a common name for it because it's not an important distinction for us.