Consider this passage on Derrida and meaning (from here):
The search for an 'essential reality' or 'origin' or 'truth' is futile, because
"...language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique, deconstructive criticism aims to show that any text inevitably undermines its own claims to have a determinate meaning, and licences the reader to produce his own meanings out of it by an activity of semantic 'freeplay'" (Derrida, 1978, in Lodge, 1988, p. 108).
The written word, in Derrida's view, relies upon its meaning via the context in which it is embedded. Both signified and signifier, though, are related in such a way that
"...there is, with respect to the very structure of language, no proper context to provide proof of a final meaning' [there is a process of continual deferral]" (Lechte, 1994, p. 109).
therefore making any claim to 'truth' an impossibility; 'truth' is both relative and plural.
How can this statement that there is no "proper context" within which to assess a statement's "final meaning" accommodate the (seeming) fact of meaningful communication?
But, we seem to be able to use language to coordinate behavior. When we make plans with friends to go to a bar, for instance, and then the meeting time comes and everyone winds up at the appropriate bar, what explains this fact? It would seem that a natural explanation is that everyone understood what was said and understood it in the "correct" way. But, if there is no fact of the matter as to what was meant by the utterance which initiated this coordinated behavior, is it simply a miracle that the group was able to grasp what was expressed. Was there a single proposition expressed that they all grasped? If you index the statement to its initial context of utterance in a sufficiently precise manner does it possess this determinate meaning, at least relative to this specific context?
TL;DR: How does Derrida reconcile his views about (what seems to be) the essential relativity and indeterminacy of linguistic communication with the phenomenon of linguistic coordination? Can this be done without appeal to a univocal notion of "truth" and determinate meaning (at least determinate meaning relative to a specific context of utterance)?