Although writing is a tool for communication, the way one writer communicates a fact is not always the same as how another one does it. The written word is unique to the writer and reflects his or her preferred writing style. When something is written by a non-native speaker of language, native speakers and experts often feel slightly unusual, even if they can find no obvious errors. Moreover, they might revise the text based on their experience. On the other hand, the writer often feels slightly dissatisfied with the correction if it does not fit for his or her writing preference. It is difficult for the corrector to understand the writers’ writing preference from the text, and it is also difficult for the writer to explain it explicitly since both writing and correcting a piece of text are based on one’s subjectivity. The correction is unique to the text, so the inner evaluation of the text is important. This study proposes a method of deriving each writer’s writing preference numerically from the expert’s initial evaluation. In the process, the texts other than the target text are taken into consideration from the viewpoint that writing is a communication tool. The corrector may use the feedback from the proposed method to confirm his or her intuitive judgments and to add some new viewpoints.

1. [1] H. J. Heringe, “Texte analysieren und verstehen: Eine linguistische Einführung,” Wilhelm Fink, Paderborn, 2011 (in German).
2. [2] T. L. Saaty, “The Analytic Hierarchy Process,” McGraw-Hill, 1980.
3. [3] K. Sugihara and H. Tanaka, “Interval evaluations in the Analytic Hierarchy Process by Possibilistic Analysis,” Computational Intelligence, Vol.17, No.3, pp. 567-579, 2001.
4. [4] T. Entani and K. Sugihara, “Uncertainty index based interval assignment by Interval AHP,” European J. of Operational Research, Vol.219, Issue 2, pp. 379-385, 2012.
5. [5] J.-F. Chen, H. Hsieh, and Q. H. Do, “Evaluating teaching performance based on fuzzy AHP and comprehensive evaluation approach,” Applied Soft Computing, Vol.28, pp. 100-108, 2015.
6. [6] M. Isobe, “Wie tolerant muss das Korrekturlesen sein? Zur systematischen Korrektur im deutschen Sprachunterricht,” NU-Ideas, Vol.6, pp. 45-51, 2017 (in German).
7. [7] H. Tanaka, K. Sugihara, and Y. Maeda, “Non-additive measures by interval probability functions,” Information Sciences, Vol.164, pp. 209-227, 2004.
8. [8] L. M. De Campos, J. F. Huete, and S. Moral, “Probability intervals: A tool for uncertain reasoning,” Int. J. of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol.2, No.2, pp. 167-196, 1994.
9. [9] T. Entani and M. Inuiguchi, “Maximum Lower Bound Estimation of Fuzzy Priority Weights from a Crisp Comparison Matrix,” Proc. of the 4th Int. Symp. on Integrated Uncertainty in Knowledge Modelling and Decision Making, pp. 65-76, 2015.
10. [10] E. Forman and K. Peniwati, “Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” European J. of Operational Research, Vol.108, Issue 1, pp. 165-169, 1998.
11. [11] T. L. Saaty and K. Peniwati, “Group Decision Making: Drawing Out and Reconciling Differences,” RWS Publications, 2008.
12. [12] K. Sugihara, H. Ishii, and H. Tanaka, “Interval priorities in AHP by interval regression analysis,” European J. of Operational Research, Vol.158, Issue 3, pp. 745-754, 2004.