This paper addresses the diverse, and seemingly disparate, uses of the term 'grammaticalization' and the terms closely related to it, and explores the consequences of such different terminology uses. Further, it looks at the recent claims disputing the usefulness of the terms suggesting that the states described by those terms are in fact epiphenomena. It is argued that such claims intending to invalidate the grammaticalization scholarship result from different conceptualization of 'grammar'. The concept of 'gramticalization' has attracted attention of language researchers in the functional paradigms, and has proved helpful for understanding not only the synchronic states of affairs of language but also the workings of the human cognition which enables the strategic uses of language in meaning negotiation between interlocutors. However, the term has variable names and has diverse conceptualizations by the researchers depending on their different persuasions. Identifying and differentiating these diverse labels for the self-same linguistic phenomena will be helpful for grammaticalization studies. By identifying the problems surrounding the ternology, this paper will show that such misconception is in fact due to a different interpretation of the terms involved. This paper intends to explicate the varied conception of grammaticalization terminology and their consequences.