The rich individual and collective resources of a growing multidialectal and multilingual populace impact the roles of teachers, learners and the local and global economy. Dynamic movement between languages and the blending of multiple codes of communication can be naturally occurring (or not) practices in educational as well as workplace settings depending on social and political interests, perceptions of proper and improper communicative conventions, and inclusive or selective orientations towards language planning. There is little doubt that locally or globally, in public or private domains, language has power reflected in competing ideological and theoretical lenses that influence access to and usage of native languages and dialects. Translingualism is a theoretical lens friendly to native, bilingual and multilingual language use that encompasses “translanguaging, translating, and dwelling in borders” (Cushman, 2016, p. 235). Such a view encourages linguistically and culturally diverse individuals, particularly those who do not speak the majority language, to use to the fullest extent possible all of their linguistic and communicative repertoires for social and academic purposes. Such a view also disrupts monolingual bias in research and what Matsuda (2006) referred to as the “myth of linguistic homogeneity (p. 638). Translanguaging theory is examined extensively through research findings presented in language journals and, in the last decade, is a key construct discussed in many articles published in the Bilingual Research Journal. In this expansive discussion, translanguaging, translation and translingual practice invites researchers, practitioners, employers and policy makers to examine contexts where speakers and writers move between language codes and beyond monolingual approaches for improved communicative outcomes. In the case of translation of discourse this means laboring to communicate beyond exact equivalents from one language to another because (re)representing interactional talk, audio/video recordings, writings, or multimedia compositions in transcripts is a political act (Green, Fránquiz and Dixon, 1997) connected to larger historical, social, and disciplinary conventions. Advancing a translingual perspective, then, is to question the separation of languages and to acknowledge and understand difference and hybridization as the norm rather than deviation from the dominant norm. Canagarajah (2013) defines translingualism by “focusing on the prefix.” He probes in to what the prefix “trans-” does to language and posits that “the term moves us beyond a consideration of individual or monolithic languages to life between and across languages” (p.1). In this BRJ issue we provide evidence of traditional as well as shifting conceptions regarding languages in contact, languages, and language users. Volume 42, Issue 2, is organized in three sections of research articles: Bilingual Research and K-12 Education, Bilingual Research and Teacher Education, and Bilingual Research and Adult Bilingualism. A total of eight articles discuss linguistic ideologies and practices in a variety of bilingual contexts: a first grade elementary class, a seventh grade middle school class, a second grader in an after-school program, two pre-service teacher education programs, an in-service teacher education program, a Japanese English as a Foreign Language (EFL) program, and Asian bilingualism in the labor market.

中文翻译：

---

共同编辑的介绍：跨语言实践：为那些不会说多数语言的人创造访问

不断增长的多方言和多语言人群丰富的个人和集体资源影响着教师、学习者以及当地和全球经济的角色。语言之间的动态移动和多种交流代码的混合可以是教育和工作场所中自然发生（或不发生）的实践，这取决于社会和政治利益、对适当和不适当的交流惯例的看法以及对语言的包容性或选择性取向规划。毫无疑问，在本地或全球，在公共或私人领域，语言的力量反映在影响母语和方言的获取和使用的竞争意识形态和理论视角中。跨语言主义是一种对母语友好的理论视角，双语和多语语言的使用，包括“跨语言、翻译和居住在边境”（Cushman，2016 年，第 235 页）。这种观点鼓励语言和文化多样化的个人，特别是那些不讲多数语言的人，为了社会和学术目的，尽可能充分地使用他们所有的语言和交际技能。这种观点也打破了研究中的单语偏见以及松田 (2006) 所说的“语言同质性神话”(p. 638)。跨语言理论通过语言期刊上发表的研究结果进行了广泛的研究，并且在过去十年中，它是双语研究期刊上发表的许多文章中讨论的一个关键结构。在这个广泛的讨论中，跨语言，翻译和跨语言实践邀请研究人员、从业者、雇主和政策制定者研究说话者和作者在语言代码之间移动和超越单语方法的环境，以改善交流结果。在话语翻译的情况下，这意味着努力将一种语言与另一种语言的精确等价物进行交流，因为（重新）代表互动谈话、音频/视频记录、著作或多媒体作品在抄本中是一种政治行为（Green、Fránquiz 和 Dixon , 1997) 与更大的历史、社会和学科惯例有关。那么，推进跨语言视角就是质疑语言的分离，承认和理解差异和混合是规范而不是偏离主导规范。Canagarajah (2013) 通过“关注前缀”来定义跨语言。他探讨了前缀“trans-”对语言的影响，并假设“这个词让我们超越了对单个或单一语言的考虑，进入了语言之间和跨语言的生活”（第 1 页）。在本期 BRJ 中，我们提供了关于接触语言、语言和语言用户的传统和转变概念的证据。第 42 卷，第 2 期，分为三个部分的研究文章：双语研究和 K-12 教育、双语研究和教师教育以及双语研究和成人双语。共有八篇文章讨论了各种双语环境中的语言意识形态和实践：小学一年级、中学七年级、课后计划中的二年级学生、