What is the exact relation between programming languages and Turing machines?
Maybe I'm misreading the question, but it sounds like there's some confusion in the comparison between Turing machines and programming languages.

The definition and method of defining a Turing machine constitute a programming language. Turing machines represent programs in that language.

Language syntax and semantics (e.g., in BNF) can constitute a programming language, and artifacts which satisfy those syntactic and semantic constraints are programs in that language.

So it's not really precise (IMHO; of course we can think about what TMs do in different ways, and in some of these ways of looking at TMs, you could think of individual TMs as defining programming languages. Indeed, a classically constructed universal Turing machine defines a very clear programming language, i.e., representations of Turing machines as strings) to compare implementing a programming language to implementing a Turing machine. Implementing a programming language involves defining the rules of the game, much like Turing defined the rules of the game (or whoever it was, whatever) when he defined what it meant for something to be Turing machine.

"Implementing" a programming language, and defining Turing machines, is a very difficult activity. Writing programs in a language, and defining specific Turing machines, is also a difficult activity. But they are quite different activities (except in those exceptional cases where you're writing a Turing machine to act as an interpreter, in which case maybe it makes sense to talk about designing a programming language via writing a TM... but I'm not sure this is what you were after).