The authors do not offer proof that the articles in languages like English do not impact aspect
What is it about?
Fleischhauer and Czardybon follow a completely wrong approach to aspect, known as the incremental-theme approach, an atemporal one, according to which in sentences such as "The child ate the apple" the NP "the apple" is a spatial entity which, when eaten to the end, brings about a Cinderella-like metamorphosis: the spatial feature boundedness of "the apple" miraculously turns into temporal boundedness in the VP referent, whereby "ate" receives a perfective interpretation. This childishly naive thesis, maintained in hundreds of publications belonging to the so-called incremental-theme trend and leading aspectology into a dead end with its negligence of the temporality of situation participants, is analyzed in greater depth and repudiated also later, in Kabakciev, K, 2019, On the history of compositional aspect: vicissitudes, issues, prospects. Athens Journal of Philology, 6,3. The crucial mistake by Fleischhauer and Czardybon is that they not only ignore the temporality of situation participants, they also completely bypass: (1) the role of the subject in the explication of aspect in compositional aspect terms, a fundamental concept of the theory of compositional aspect; (2) the fact that even a follower of the incremental-theme trend, Krifka M, 1992, Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution, IA Sag, A Szabolcsi, Lexical Matters. Stanford, CA, had earlier honestly admitted the impossibility to explain the perfectivity of sentences such as "The child ate the apple" through a spatial feature of the apple - because if "the apple" in such sentences undergoes a change, the subject "the child" does not. In a temporal approach to the problem, proposed almost two decades earlier (Kabakčiev K, 2000, Aspect in English: a "common-sense" view of the interplay between verbal and nominal referents. Dordrecht: Kluwer), such a problem simply does not exist: because both subject and object are interpreted as temporal entities - deep in the speaker's/hearer's mind. The authors also completely fail to see why two theories, not only one, Kabakciev's and Leiss' (Leiss E, 2000, Artikel und Aspekt. Die grammatischen Muster von Definitheit, Berlin: de Gruyter), dealing with data from completely different languages in both synchronic and diachronic terms, coincide in their conclusions that article and aspect are extremely closely interrelated in language structure - across very different languages and across millennia.
Why is it important?
The paper (response) is important because it explains one of the major wrong paths of analysis (in the so-called incremental-theme trend) of compositional aspect phenomena, ultimately leading to a thwarted picture of the cross-language and universal phenomenon of aspect.