Abstract The terms proglacial and periglacial are well-understood descriptors of contemporary and past environments, but the paraglacial concept is more controversial and has prompted vigorous debate. Definitions are reviewed and the paraglacial concept is considered critically. It is argued that the term ‘paraglacial’ defined as ‘non-glacial processes conditioned by glaciation’ describes landscapes that are adjusted neither to Last Glacial Maximum nor to contemporary geomorphic processes. Where a landscape is paraglacial it can be characterized in terms of rate of change and trajectory of that change. It cannot be defined in relation to glaciers (as in proglacial) or by cold-climate processes (as in periglacial). Almost all paraglacial landforms and all paraglacial landscapes are transient and transitional. An interesting challenge of paraglacial landscapes is then to determine their rates of change; how far they have advanced along the trajectory from glacial to non-glacial; and how to recognize empirically the temporal and spatial relationships between proglacial, periglacial, paraglacial and fluvial landscapes. Implications of this approach to paraglacial landscapes are discussed in relation to historical and dynamic geomorphology.