Michael: Well, now you’re getting into the background that I skipped in favor of asking the questions (though it is hinted at in the article I linked to on the blog version of the post. The other one went more in depth, but it’s behind a paywall so I didn’t bother to link it).
But anyway, the argument is that programming languages DO resemble spoken languages, at least in as much as the reasons that we (English majors) care about languages that aren’t english. And given that I know you, I expect you’d agree that they are correct in as much as their definitions for language (which you could argue is not the correct definition, but that’s another point).
Programming and Human languages are both:
1) Semantic collections of grammar
2) used to communicate ideas
4) Used to create artifacts/texts that are creative.
The authors go on to make the argument that the reason english majors SHOULD care about code is that it is actually a creative and expressive artistic act, that can be studied as such, provided you know the language so as to be able to understand it. (which of course it is, which is why we can say there is clearly well written and poorly written code)