Yes: “In the mere encountering of something, it is understood in terms of a totality of involvements; and such seeing hides in itself the explicitness of the assignment-relations (of the ‘in-order-to’) which belong to that totality.” —Heidegger, Being and Time 150 (MQ&R trans)
Which means: 1) The everyday way we take things is as according to their use – what Heidegger refers to as the ‘in-order-to’. 2) This ‘in-order-to’ is meaningful to us in the context of the world’s web of significance.
A person’s understanding of a hammer as a hammer, a nail as a nail, a doghouse as a doghouse, indicates her effortless, pre-conscious awareness of the totality of involvements of things with other things. This is the basic outline of how things are related in Being and Time – Heidegger gets much more detailed about it, taking into account factors like spatiality and the possibility of taking things in an authentic rather than everyday (aka inauthentic) manner.
For Heidegger, the implications of this idea are vast. However, Heidegger did once say that the main takeaway of Being and Time is that Dasein is ecstatic. Dasein is the Being of those beings who examine Being as an issue (i.e., humans). To be ec-static is to be always already beyond; outside of – so what Heidegger meant (to bastardize it a bit) is that humans are anticipatory; are always already beyond themselves in their being-in-the-world.
that’s a metaphysics-answer. I’ll try to make it back later for a philosophy-of-language-answer