He is charged with murder.
Here with murder should be classed as complement. The reason is that the preposition with seems to depend on the verb. Compare this with:
- charged on Monday
- charged at 11am
- charged by the police
Here the different prepositional phrases we observe can occur freely with a wide range of sentences. There is no sense in which the on in on Monday is there because it is licensed in some special way by the verb CHARGE. The situation is palpably different in the case of charged with. The preposition with intuitively seems to go with the verb.
Now the term complement as described in the Wikipedia excerpt is rather problematic. To illustrate, every direct object is a complement. So for example in:
- He smiled a beautiful smile.
... the noun phrase headed by smile is regarded as a complement of the verb. However, because the verb SMILE can be both transitive and intransitive (i.e. may or may not take an object), we will still have a workable sentence without the object:
This definition of a complement - as something without which the sentence will be grammatically incomplete - is therefore not very helpful. The best way to understand a complement is as a phrase which fulfils a special kind of grammatical function. A useful way of thinking about this function is that one of the items in the sentence sets up a 'slot' or series of 'slots'. The phrases that fill these slots function as complements of the item in question.
Consider the following utterance:
- I bet Bob £50 Obama will win the election.
Here the verb BET sets up slots for the following: a betting adversary (Bob), a stake (£50) and a proposition (Obama will win the election). The items in brackets that fill these slots are therefore complements of the verb bet. We can of course stick an adjunct onto the sentence:
- I bet Bob £50 Obama will win the election in one of my fits of recklessness.
In one of my fits of recklessness, though, is not filling a slot set up by the verb. It is merely tagging extraneous information onto the sentence proper. It is in every sense an adjunct.
When we are not sure if an item is a complement or an adjunct, there are various tests that we can apply. For example, we can replace the verb and its complements with the pro-form verb DO and the pronoun it. If the item is an adjunct then we should still be able to add it onto the end of the sentence. If it is a complement this will (usually) not be possible:
- They played football in the park.
- They did it in the park.
- They did it football. * (wrong)
Example (2) shows that in the park is not a complement of the verb, as we are still able to append it to the sentence after the verb and its complements have been replaced. It is an adjunct. Example (3), however, shows that football does seem to be a complement of the verb, because if we repeat it after the verb and complements have been replaced, the sentence is badly formed. We can do the same test with complements of the verb BET:
- I bet Bob £50 that Obama will win the election in one of my fits of recklessness.
- I did it in one of my fits of recklessness.
- I did it Bob. * (wrong)
- I did it £50. * (wrong)
- I did it that Obama will win the election. * (wrong)
Sentence (2) above shows that in one of my fits of recklessness is an adjunct. Sentences (3-5), contrastingly, show that the various phrases associated with the verb bet are not adjuncts but complements.
Returning to the sentence in the Original Poster's question, we need to change the pro-forms slightly so that the verb DO is in the passive to match the structure of the original sentence. The following sentences will be useful in terms of comparison:
- He was charged on Friday.
- He was charged unjustly.
- He was charged with murder.
When the necessary adjustments are made we will see that on Friday and unjustly do indeed behave like adjuncts, but that with murder does not. It behaves like a complement:
- It was done on Friday.
- It was done unjustly.
- It was done with murder. * (wrong)
All the evidence then seems to suggest that in the example sentence with murder is a complement, not an adjunct.
Best Answer
The answer to your question is yes, there are.
In fact, adjectives can be complements in all of their six functions (that I know of):
[1] NON-COMPLEMENT COMPLEMENT
1. attributive That was a legal play. I need a legal adviser.
2. predicative He died young. He was/seemed young.
3. postpositive I need something general. He is the Surgeon General.
4. predeterminer It is such a nuisance. It was such a big problem that
we called the police.
5. fused ? The rich are to blame.
modifier-head
6. subject N/A Big is what you are, my boy.
In [1], in all the entries except in 5, the boldfaced words are adjective phrases (AdjPs). See below for explanations of why they are complements in the right column, but not in the left. In 5, the boldfaced words are the fused modifier-head of a noun phrase (NP).
The adjective will always be a complement in 6 (the subject); it is usually (and perhaps even always) a complement in 5 (fused modifier-head). It is most commonly a complement in 2 (predicative). In 1 and 3 (attributive and postpositive uses), adjectives are by far most commonly modifiers, but sometimes they can be complements, too. Finally, in 4 (predeterminer), they can definitely be either complements or modifiers, but I don't know which role is more common.
Let me say a bit more about 5 and 6.
In 5, the adjective functions as a fused modifier-head of a noun phrase (NP). Such an NP may be either the subject or the object:
[2] a. The rich are to blame. [subject]
b. Let us blame the rich. [object]
Here the rich is a complete noun phrase, even though it has no nouns. It functions as the subject in a. and as the object in b. Both of those functions are complements in the structure of the clause.
In general, NPs can appear in a number of non-complement functions as well. However, I don't know if fused modifier-head NPs ever appear in such roles. I certainly don't have a ready example.
Finally, it is even possible for AdjPs to serve as the subject, as in
[4] Big is what you are, my boy.
This is obviously a complement role, but not one of a predicative complement. Here we have an unusual syntax for a semantic relation that is usually expressed as You are big, where big is a PC. I'll discuss this more below.
Discussion
Consider the following sentences:
[5] a. These are happy people. [attributive]
b. These people seem happy. [predicative complement]
c. I want to meet someone happy. [postpositive]
In all three sentences, we have the same adjective, happy. But in each sentence, that one and the same adjective performs a different function: it is used differently. In [5] a., it is used attributively; in b., as a predicative complement; and in c., postpositively. These are the three principal uses of adjectives. However, there are also some others; we'll get to them later.
Technically, we actually don't want to say that it is the adjectives that perform these roles. Instead, we want to say that
In [5], the AdjPs all consist of a single adjective, happy. But if you replace happy by very happy, you get a more complicated AdjP. And this more complicated AdjP nicely functions in all three roles.
Complements vs adjuncts
1. Attributive function
According to CGEL (p. 528),
There are, however, some adjectives that can function attributively as complements. For example (CGEL, p. 439; the number in the original was 2 rather than 6),
Why are these complements of the noun rather than modifiers? Compare
[7] i a good adviser = an adviser that is good
ii a legal play = a play that is legal
iii a legal adviser ≠ an adviser that is legal
In [7] i, good is a modifier (rather than a complement), and there is a correspondence between attributive and PC functions. Similarly, legal is a modifer in ii, and there is the same correspondence. However, in iii, there is no such correspondence. This happens with only some nouns, and for each such noun, only with some adjectives: for example, with the noun adviser, it happens with such adjectives as legal, technical, medical, etc. These adjectives are therefore licensed by the noun; and whenever something is licensed, it means it is a complement; that, indeed, is the basic criterion (CGEL, p. 440).
Here is another test to distinguish between modifiers and complements among the AdjPs functioning as pre-head dependents in NP structure: the scope of anaphora (CGEL, pp. 440-441).
Now compare
[8] i I prefer good advisors to bad ones.
ii I prefer legal plays to illegal ones.
iii ?I prefer legal advisors to medical ones.
Here [8] iii is an attempt to combine the pro-form one with an internal complement. Such attempts, according to CGEL, typically show 'varying degrees of infelicity'. In contrast, there is no problem when one is combined with a modifier, as in i and ii.
2. Predicative complement function
As you notied yourself, in this function, an AdjP is always a complement, really by definition. However, there is a similar role where it is an adjunct, a predicative adjunct. We've seen an example of that in [1]:
[1] NON-COMPLEMENT COMPLEMENT
predicative He died young. He seemed young.
Young is a PC in the right column, but a predicative adjunct in the left. I'll return to this below.
3. Postpositive function
According to CGEL (p. 529),
Usually, they are modifiers, like happy in [5] c. However, here are some examples of a postpositive adjective functioning as complements (Garner's Modern American Usage, p. 627):
[9] attorney general surgeon general postmaster general secretary general
ambassador-designate heir apparent president-elect
accounts payable accounts receivable annuity certain
condition precedent condition subsequent
court-martial knight-errant minister extraordinary
notary public battle royal body politic
First of all, I suppose an argument is required to establish that some of these are indeed adjectives. For example, in the case of general, if it were a noun, the plural would be e.g. *surgeon generals, but it is not: it is surgeons general. Attorney general is an exception because in British English the plural is attorney generals; in American English, however, it's attorneys general (Garner's Modern American Usage, p. 617). I will not try to give a further argument, and just note that Garner's lists all of these as examples of postpositive adjectives.
Secondly, one should provide an argument that these adjectives are complements. This is pretty straightforward: all of these adjectives are licensed. For example, we can use general in this way with only a handful of nouns. The postpositive uses of the other adjectives in [9] are similarly restrictive.
Adjectives in other functions
While the three functions in [5] are the main functions that adjectives (that is, AdjPs) perform, sometimes they can also perform other functions. Here are some examples (CGEL, p. 529; in the original, the example number is 3, not 10):
An AdjP in the function of a predicative adjunct is obviously not a complement (that's kind of the whole point of this special role). However, AdjPs functioning as predeterminers can be complements:
4. Predeterminer function
Consider
[11] [How big a company] is it? It was [so serious a matter that we called the police].
Here brackets enclose noun phrases, while the boldfaced words are AdjPs (CGEL, p. 551). It is pretty clear that the AdjPs are complements here; omitting them results in nonsense.
5. The function as the fused modifier-head of an NP
As I've discussed above, fused modifier-head AdjPs are heads of NPs, and these can function as complements in the structure of a clause (i.e. the subject and the object).
[2] a. The rich are to blame. [subject]
b. Let us blame the rich. [object]
6. The subject function: semantics vs syntax
To begin with, consider
[12] I became sick.
As far as syntax, sick functions as a predicative complement (PC). As far as semantics, it denotes a property ('being sick') that is predicated of something (the speaker).
Here the grammatical and syntactic functions align nicely: we accomplish the semantic goal of assigning a property to the speaker (I) by using a complex-transitive verb (become) with a PC complement (sick).
But we don't always have such a straightforward fit between syntax and semantics. Consider the sentence
[13] Big is what you are, my boy.
Semantically, this is similar to [12]: we are predicating a property ('being big') to something (you, 'the boy'). However, syntactically, things are very unusual: consider the word that denotes the property, big; technically, we should say that this is an AdjP consisting of just the head, a single adjective. This AdjP is the subject rather than a PC. And what you are is not the PC here. This we know because is cannot be replaced by any other verb that normally allows a PC (such as become, appear, seem, etc.).
The syntax of [13] is relatively complex, and it would take us too far to analyze it right now. My only point is that the main verb here (is) does not have a PC.1
1Though the second verb, are, does have a PC: compare with Big is what you have become, my boy. However, what you [are]/[have become] is not a clause, but what's called a fused relative noun phrase... like I said, it's complicated.
So, is big in [13] a 'predicate adjective'? Semantically, yes; syntactically, no. And so, syntactically, it is an example of an adjective in complement function which is not a predicative complement. (It should be clear why it is in a complement function: the subject is always a complement.)