This is intensifier transfer: the semanteme 'intense', present in the meaning of [to] PLAGUE used with [a] DOUBT (John is plagued by doubt), is lexicalized separately as the adjective GNAWING, which is syntactically transferred to the noun DOUBT (John feels gnawing doubt).
PSI]' and [PSI]" are linked by a semanteme of a metonymic character: 'is-part.
PSI]' and [PSI]" are not linked by a semanteme of a metonymic character; then [PSI]' and [PSI]" give rise to two Sem-actant slots, say, Y and Z (see examples  and ).
Corresponding to a participant of SIT(L) is thus a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a semanteme '[sigma]' to be a SemA of 'L': '[sigma]' must also BE EXPRESSLE IN THE TEXT IN A PARTICULAR WAY.
The semanteme 'perceive' in the Sem-decomposition (7b) is underlined as communicatively dominant node (roughly speaking, 'see' is a particular case of 'perceive'); cf.
Under lexicalization of this SemR, the semanteme '[to] come' becomes a component inside the definition of ZDAT' '[to] expect someone to come'.
Again, such circumstantials semantically bear on the semanteme 'come', which is within the meaning 'expect N to come', and again they are restricted to the verb ZDAT'.
This question is: how do we carry out the lexicalization of semantic elements that bear on a semantic element that is XNSIDE a configuration of semantemes lexicalized as a whole, by an LU?