This ties into a vague idea I have bouncing around my head about viewing natural language works &quot;structurally&quot;, especially in terms of premises, arguments, conclusions, etc.<p>Analytic philosophers are pretty good at this already, as well as good science writers and thesis authors.<p>They can present the high level &quot;type signature&quot; of their work: something like, I assume the premises X, Y, and Z, (see books 1, 2, and 3 which argue for these premises) and then deploy arguments of kind A and B in order to strengthen the conclusion C.<p>Interpreted with a programmer&#x27;s vocational damage, that text would be a function from (X, Y, Z) to C, using A and B as implementation patterns or algorithms, and recommending books 1, 2, 3 as concrete providers of the types X, Y, Z.<p>(Some kind of hand-wavey metaphorical Curry-Howard equivalence extended to rhetoric?)