From Aspect to Mood With(out) Tense
Although in Serbian traditional grammars it is often generalized that da+present complements are on par with infinitives in that they occur in the complements where an infinitive is also possible, some scholars have recognized (Browne 1986, Ivić 1970, Gołąb 1964) that not all da+present complements exhibit the same properties. Ivić (1970) notes that there are two different types of da+present complements: mobile and non-mobile. She claims that mobile da+present complements could be replaced by any other tense while non-mobile da+ present complements could be replaced by infinitives and potential only. In her (1973) work, Ivić suggests that there is no clausal boundary between the volitional matrix verb and dacomplements by proposing that the two create one clause. Gołąb (1964) extensively analyzes dacomplements by looking at the relationship they form with the matrix verb and the contribution aspect of the complement verb plays in that relationship. He emphasizes that the complexity of dacomplements can only be understood if the syntactic-semantic relationship between a dacomplement and matrix verb is not disregarded.
Analyzing dacomplements from a syntactic-semantic perspective, I build on the earlier proposals by incorporating new theories. Adopting Progovac’s (2005) syntactic structure, which suggests that functional projections in Serbian come in two layers (subject and object), and
Giannakidous’s (1998, 2009) semantic classification of verbs and notion of (non)veridicality, I suggest that to properly analyze da -complements, the first step would be to dissolve da+present into da + imperfective present (non-past) and da+perfective present (non-past) , and the second step would be to consider semantic properties of the matrix verb which select for dacomplements. Within these parameters, I further claim that it is possible to distinguish between the subjunctive and indicative dacomplements. I suggest that the functional projections of the subjunctive dacomplements are associated with the object layer while the functional projections of the indicative dacomplements are associated with the subject layer of the clausal structure.
Unlike earlier approaches, I claim that in addition to the semantic properties of the matrix verb (indicative and subjunctive selecting verbs), not only tense but the aspect (perfective and imperfective) selection of the embedded verb as well plays an important role in the interpretation of the subjunctive or indicative mood in a dacomplement. For example, while da+perfective non-past can complement non-veridical subjunctive verbs, it can never complement veridical indicative selecting verbs which select strictly for da+imperfective non-past.
Additionally, as the indicative dacomplements can be in the present, past, or future, and since the tense of the indicative dacomplement can be disassociated from the matrix tense, I claim that the embedded verb in the indicative da -complements has its own tense projections. On the other hand, the embedded verb in the subjunctive dacomplements allows only for the present (non-past) and its tense interpretation is always depended on the tense of the matrix verb.
For this reason, I claim that the verb in a subjunctive dacomplement is tense deficient, and that its tense deficiency is repaired by the subjunctive da which binds the embedded deficient tense with the non-deficient tense of the matrix verb (Bulatović 2008).
Similarly to Antonenko (2008) who observes idiosyncrasy in Russian between the subjunctive and the past tense, I too claim that the use of the present tense in Serbian subjunctive dacomplements is idiosyncrasy as well. The event expressed by the the present tense in a subjunctive dacomplement is not situated in the present just as the event expressed by a subjunctive clause in Russian is not situated in the past as noted in examples in (B).

A. Indicative complements: 1
Serbian: Ivan kaže da Maša *pročita/čita “Rat i Mir”.
Ivan said da Maša read-pres.perf./pres.imperf. War and Peace.
Ivan says that Maša is reading War and Peace.
Russian: Ivan skazal čto
Maša pročitaet/čitaet/budet čitat’ “Vojnu i Mir.”
Ivan wants that Maša read-pres/ fut.perf./fut.imperf. War and Peace.
Ivan says that Maša is reading/will have been reading/will be reading
War and Peace.
B. Subjunctive complements:
Serbian:
Ivan želi da Maša čita /pročita “Rat i Mir”.
Ivan wants da Maša read imperf./perf. War and Peace.
Russian:
Ivan xočet čtoby
Maša pročitala/čitala “Vojnu i Mir”
Ivan wants that-subj. Maša read-past perf./past imperf. “War and Peace”.
Ivan wants for Maša to read War and Peace.
In conclusion, the implications of my proposals suggest two outcomes. First, not tense but aspect selection in a da+present (non-past) complement is responsible for the interpretation of the subjunctive or indicative mood. Second, the syntactic approach to the analysis of mood in
Serbian cannot be divorced from the semantic approach, and that only when these two approaches are collapsed together can the parameters of the subjunctive and indicative da complements be fully understood.
Selected references:
Antonenko, Andrei. 2008. The nature of Russian Subjunctive clauses. Generals Paper. Stony
Brook University.
Bulatović, Angelica Gina. 2008.
Modality, Futurity and Temporal Dependency: The Semantics of the Serbian Perfective Non-past and Future 2. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of
Chicago.
Browne, Wayles. 1986. Relative Clause in Serbo-Croatian in Comparison with English. Zagreb:
Institute of Linguistics, University of Zagreb.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)veridical Dependency. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2009. On the temporal properties of mood: the subjunctive revisited.
Lingua 119. 1523-1550.
Goląb, Zbigniew. 1964. The problem of verbal moods in Slavic languages.
International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 8. 1-36
Ivić, Milka. 1970. O upotrebi glagolskih vremena u zavisnoj recenici: Prezent u recenici sa veznikom DA. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku 13. 43-53.
1 Both Russian examples are from Antonenko (2008).

Ivić, Milka. 1973. Neka pitanja reda reci u srpskohrvatskoj zavisnoj recenici s veznikom da.
Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku 16/1.187-95.
Progovac,Ljiljana. 2005. A Syntax of Serbian Clausal Architecture. Bloomington: Slavica.