Your statements are set in blue text; my answers in black text:
The following questions are based on the examples you used in your book.
1) A dependent clause can take on the following parts of speech section:
Object: "The dazed woman went whichever way the crowd ahead of her went."
The dependent clause here, functioning as the direct object, is supposed to be "whichever way the crowd ahead of her went" right?
That’s right, the entire clause “whichever way the crowd ahead of her went” is the direct object of the verb “went.” To make this idea easier to grasp, think of that entire clause as the equivalent of “there” or “that way” as direct objects in this sentence: "The dazed woman went there.” "The dazed woman went that way.” (A simple test for determining whether “there” and “that way” are indeed direct objects is to answer this question: “Where did the dazed woman go?” The answer, of course, will be: “There” or “That way.” Both of them directly receive the action of the verb “go.”)
a) Could you help me see the subject and predicate that makes "whichever way the crowd ahead of her went" a complete sentence? It seems like an adverbial phrase for some reason.
No, a dependent clause can never be a complete sentence, for it is always preceded by a dependency marker—in this case “whichever”—that makes it functionally a phrase and not a clause in the sentence. Indeed, a dependent clause can never stand by itself as a sentence and is forever consigned to the role of latching on to a main clause to serve its purpose.
b) If that's the dependent clause, then "The dazed woman went", the remaining part of the sentence should be independent, but is not a complete thought without the rest of the sentence. So do we have two dependent clauses that make up one independent clause?
No. In a complex sentence, there should always be a main clause and a dependent or subordinate clause. In your particular example, the main clause “the dazed woman went” can actually be taken as a complete sentence in itself. It has a subject, “the dazed woman,” and a verb, “went,” that’s a complete predicate by itself. Together they form a complete sentence: “The dazed woman went.” In contrast, the dependent clause "whichever way the crowd ahead of her went" can’t stand by itself, for it has no functional or operative verb to carry out the action. That dependent clause needs the verb “went” of the main clause to make it functional: “The dazed woman went whichever way the crowd ahead of her went"
2) Object of Preposition: "You have to remind me every time where we must take a turn if you don't want us to get lost."
a) "remind me every time where we must take a turn" is the object of the preposition "to". At first glance this looks like an infinitive. But i'm not sure if there's such a thing as an infinitive clause to begin with.
To avoid being confused, think of a dependent clause as always preceded by a relative pronoun (“who,” “which,” “where”) to be a dependent clause to begin with. As such, it will always be functioning as a noun form, in which case it can be the subject, doer of the action, or direct or indirect object in the sentence. Thus, in the sentence in question, the direct object of the preposition is actually the dependent clause “where we must take a turn if you don't want us to get lost,” the indirect object is “me,” and “every time” an adverbial time phrase.
There’s such a thing as an infinitive phrase but not an infinitive clause. The italicized words in the following sentence is an example of an infinitive phrase: “To love so deeply without being reciprocated is often a traumatic experience.” Here, it’s acting as the subject of the sentence.
b) if an object is the receiver of an action, "remind me every time where we must take a turn" receives "have to", which is more likely an auxiliary than an action verb. How do auxiliaries figure in?
Let’s examine this sentence: “You have to remind me every time where we must take a turn." The action verb is “have” in the sense of causing or commanding to do something. It is followed by the infinitive phrase “to remind me every time,” which completes the main clause. The dependent or subordinate clause “where we must take a turn” serves as the direct object of the verb “have.” (The auxiliary “has”/”have”/”had” figure in the perfect tenses, of course, where they are used to indicate continuing action in the past, present, or future.)
3)
a) “After she appeared in the award-winning movie, the young actress started receiving many offers for plum roles.” (The dependent clause acts as an adverbial clause)
That’s right; the dependent clause acts as an adverbial clause modifying the entire main clause.
b) “Because the volume of his business had dropped so low, the entrepreneur decided to invest more in radio advertising.” (The dependent clause starts with a conjunction, Because, but the rest of the clause acts as a noun?)
No. Here we have a complex sentence: “Because the volume of his business had dropped so low, the entrepreneur decided to invest more in radio advertising.” Of course, it can also be written with the main clause ahead of the subordinate clause: “The entrepreneur decided to invest more in radio advertising because the volume of his business had dropped so low.” In both cases, the subordinate clause “because the volume of his business had dropped so low” denotes the cause of the action in the main clause. The clause after “because” doesn’t act as a noun but as a complete statement describing the nature of the cause of the result described in the main clause.
c) “I will have to let her go as my executive secretary, unless she changes her careless ways.”
(The dependent clause starts with a conjunction, unless, and the rest of the clause "she changes her careless ways" seems to be dangling though. I'm not sure about this.
Yes, a dependent clause always starts with the subordinating conjunction that introduces it. No, the clause “she changes her careless ways” isn’t dangling; by itself, in fact, it’s a complete sentence: “She changes her careless ways.” (It only seems to dangle because it’s in the present tense and doesn’t say what changes are made.)
d) “When the general manager returns from his foreign trip this Sunday, meet him at the airport unless you get a call from me by seven that morning not to do so.” (The first dependent clause starts with When, which makes this an adverbial clause, the second starts with unless, and again, I am at a loss with what this clause is supposed to be)
A better way to deconstruct that sentence is this: The main clause is “meet him at the airport.” Subordinate to this main clause is “unless you get a call from me by seven that morning not to do so.” Another subordinate clause—you correctly describe it as an adverbial clause—is “when the general manager returns from his foreign trip this Sunday.” What we have here is a complex sentence with two subordinate clauses.
4) I noticed that you switched the dependency clauses from the head, to the tail end of the examples (mentioned above) in your book. Was that just to show the acceptable placements for dependent clauses?
Yes, of course.
5) What did you mean by "motivation and limitation" in this passage:
In example D, we have 2 subordinate clauses flanking the independent clause "meet him at the airport" giving the statement both its motivation and its limitation.
By “motivation,” I meant that the adverbial clause “when the general manager returns from his foreign trip this Sunday” is the reason for the command to meet him; and by “limitation,” I meant that the execution of the command depends on a particular condition, in this case ““unless you get a call from me by seven that morning not to do so.”
