According to Donald Davidson, it is only if one has triangulated with another person, i.e., only if one has responded to an interlocutor as well as to features of one's environment to which the interlocutor was also responding, that one can produce meaningful utterances and have the concept of objectivity, both of which are necessary to be a speaker at all. Davidson's conclusion has been rejected on the ground that there are people, such as young children and some autistic people, who do speak even though they lack the concept of objectivity and cannot interpret others. I propose a reconstruction of the triangulation argument that can accommodate those cases. With Davidson, I argue that triangulation is necessary both for meaning-determination and for possession of the concept of objectivity. More precisely, only a person who has triangulated with another can have the concept of objectivity, and only a person who has the concept of objectivity can fix meaning. However, contra Davidson, I argue that it does not follow from this that everyone who speaks must have the concept of objectivity. It follows only that everyone who speaks must have interacted with someone who has the concept of objectivity.