Davidson insists that meaning is based on history in swampman thought experiment and triangulation. According to Lepore & Ludwig and Goldberg, this argument brings about a contradiction to his account of radical interpretation. They insist that Davidson has to reject his swampman thought experiment or revise his triangulation to resolve the contradiction. However, their opinions have some errors. They mistake a Davidson's meaning. Davidson doesn't give prominence to historicism in developing his account of radical interpretation, be that as it may, historicity is not a fortuitous factor in his entire philosophical enterprise. Davidson asserts that it demands the second person in interaction with a speaker to emergency of language and thought. A speaker shares with the second man a historical and causal interaction, therefore they construct their speech community. Davidson is well known that he denies the existence of convention, language and even language community. In fact, Davidson doesn't deny a regular connection between speech and action, but he just denies an inevitable emergency of common meaning, namely the existence of common language. For Davidson, the speech community is a group of people who share history of interaction and participate in triangulation. This kind of community is not the determinant of meaning, but the background or social setting of meaning and speech.