A fair amount of descriptive research in the field of second language acquisition has looked at the presence of what have been labeled corrective recasts. This research has relied on the methodological practice of coding to identify particular turns as "corrective recasts." Often, the coding criteria make use of the notion of the maintenance of meaning across turns, implicitly incorporating a theory of meaning. Through the use of empirically-based arguments, this paper demonstrates the problematic nature of this theory of meaning, and of the notion of the maintenance of meaning. However, the purpose of this paper is not to suggest ways that problems with such criteria may be rectified or mitigated. Rather, the exploration of problems with this notion is used to introduce more fundamental problems related to the use of coding. It is argued that the nature of the methodological practice of coding may be different from how it is generally understood. It is also argued that the use of coding obscures what is happening for participants in interaction. These arguments apply beyond research on corrective recasts within the field of second language acquisition, to all research on interaction which involves the methodological practice of coding.