The article examines the terminological ambiguity surrounding the concepts of cantus floridus and paraphrase. The terms used to describe techniques for working with monophonic originals in 15th- and 16th-cen­tury music are interpreted ambiguously in the works of Russian-language researchers (Yu. K. Evdoki­mo­va, N. A. Simakova). However, an even greater discre­pancy arises when comparing Russian and foreign thesauri. In Russian scholarship, cantus flori­dus is ge­ne­rally understood as a richly ornamented can­tus prius factus, while paraphrase is almost always asso­ciated with continuous imitative writing, which leads to conceptual contradictions in the analysis of mu­sical works from the 15th to the first quarter of the 16th cen­turies. In both the English- and German-language traditions, paraphrase is associated not only with melo­dic embellishment but also with the imita­tive deve­lopment of borrowed material. Moreover, para­phrasing is understood as a broader compositional principle underlying various techniques of working with pre-existing musical material. In conclusion, without abandoning the established terminology, this paper proposes viewing all the processes discussed above through the lens of paraphrasing. Three principal types are distinguished: melodic (linear) paraphrase, contrast (variant) paraphrase, imitative paraphrase. This approach allows for a more flexible interpretation of Renaissance compositional processes, avoiding a rigid association of particular techniques with specific historical periods. It also facilitates the integration of the Russian terminological framework into the broader international scholarly discourse.