English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper revisits the issue of the opaque interrelationship between the  English Dialect Dictionary  ( EDD ) and the  Oxford English Dictionary  ( OED ). While work on  OED3 , the online version, has been in progress since 2000, the  EDD  was digitised in three phases between 2006 and 2019.  EDD 3.0 , with its sophisticated interface, was launched in April 2019. This paper ventures to question the  OED ’s policy of providing or omitting source evidence for some of its data. After a survey of the unequal aims and structures of the two dictionaries from their beginnings down to the end of  OED2  (1989), the focus of the paper is on their relationship with regard to the two online versions, first as described by recent  OED  editors, and then by examining the interfaces. A quantitative analysis of the lexical variants attributed to Worcestershire in the two dictionaries is used as a test case to show that  OED3  has borrowed more data from  EDD  ( Online ) than the  OED  entries attest and the ranking-list of sources misleadingly suggests. The paper critically analyses the  OED ’s practice of providing source evidence only for quotations, but generally not for (dialectal) variants.

OED and EDD: comparison of the printed and online versions