This discussion is a response to Richard Hudson's response to my article, ‘The policy and policing of language in schools’ (Cushing 2019). Hudson argues that current education policy in England generally rejects and avoids prescriptivism and sets out to illustrate this in reference to a number of policy documents. As in my original article, I conceive of language policy as p/Political and one way in which language ideologies get turned into practices, through a series of policy mechanisms such as curricula, tests, and guidance for teachers. I show how these mechanisms do not ‘reject’ prescriptivism, but explicitly perpetuate it, and thus act as a system of coercion which can lead teachers into reproducing these ideologies in their practice. I argue that Hudson's argument is limited because of its depoliticised stance and understanding of key sociolinguistic concepts and issues, such as ‘Standard English’, ‘linguistic correctness’, and language education itself. (Language education policy, language ideologies, critical applied linguistics, schools, England)*

中文翻译：

---

学校的权力、警务和语言政策机制：对哈德逊的回应

本次讨论是对 Richard Hudson 对我的文章“学校语言的政策和监管”（Cushing 2019）的回应的回应。哈德森认为，英格兰目前的教育政策普遍拒绝和避免规定主义，并着手参考一些政策文件来说明这一点。与我最初的文章一样，我将语言政策视为 p/政治，是通过课程、测试和教师指导等一系列政策机制将语言意识形态转化为实践的一种方式。我展示了这些机制如何不“拒绝”规定主义，而是明确地延续它，从而充当一种强制系统，可以引导教师在实践中复制这些意识形态。我认为哈德森 由于其去政治化的立场和对关键社会语言学概念和问题的理解，例如“标准英语”、“语言正确性”和语言教育本身，他的论点是有限的。（语言教育政策、语言意识形态、批判性应用语言学、学校、英格兰）*