the literal rule指“表面字义原则”。

表面字义原则也可以称为严格字义原则。根据该原则，法官们应该严格按照立法规范的字面意思行事，而不应该想当然地对这些立法作出自己的解释；法官们应该使用文字的表面或日常普通字义，哪怕这样做可能会导致不公或法官们不愿见到的结果。

The literal rule is a rule of statutory interpretation and is where the courts simply look at the words of the statute and apply them as they are written giving them their ordinary and natural meaning.

这个原则具体运用到案例法中就是要求法官们在适用先例时，严格遵循先例文字的表面或日常普通字义，不对先例按自己的意愿做随意的解释，即使这样做为自己所不愿。

the golden rule指“镀金原则”。

当使用表面字义原则会明显导致荒谬的结果时，镀金原则得以适用。虽然镀金原则也要求法庭尽量按普通字义（ordinary meaning）来解读先例，但当按普通字义解读先例会导致荒谬的结果时，镀金原则允许法庭对普通字义进行适当的变通。

The golden rule in English law is one of the rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by the English courts. The rule can be used to avoid the consequences of a literal interpretation of the wording of a statute when such an interpretation would lead to a manifest absurdity or to a result that is contrary to principles of public policy. The rule can be applied in two different ways, named respectively the narrow approach and the broad approach.

镀金原则有两种：a）狭义镀金原则（the narrow meaning rule），系指当先例所用文字字义含糊或同时拥有两种（或以上）含义时，可导致最小荒谬的含义得以适用。b）广义镀金原则（the wider meaning rule）系指为避免荒谬的结果或违反公共政策的解读，法庭可以拒绝使用文字的字面含义（the literal meaning of the word），即使先例所用文字仅有一种含义。

the mischief rule指“宽松原则”。

源自于英国案例Heydon’s Case (1584)，宽松原则是最灵活（the most flexible）的法律解释规则。该原则允许法院以先例所瞄准的最终目标（或所要求达到的最终目的）为准则，在达到先例所要求之结果的情况下可对先例文字作灵活的解释。

The mischief rule[1] is one of three rules of statutory interpretation traditionally applied by English courts,[2] the other two being the "plain meaning rule" (also known as the "literal rule") and the "golden rule". It is used to determine the exact scope of the "mischief" that the statute in question has set out to remedy, and to guide the court in ruling in a manner which will "suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy".

以下为相关双语示例，供参考：

In applying the rule, the court is essentially asking whether parliament in enacting the statute intended to rectify a particular mischief, even though it might not be covered by a literal reading of the statute's wording. For example, if a law prohibits a specific behaviour "in the street", the legislators might – or might not – have intended the same behaviour on a first-floor balcony overlooking the roadway to be covered.

在适用这一规则时，法庭实质上是在问议会在颁布法规时是否打算纠正某一特定的损害，即使从字面上理解法规的措辞可能不包括这一损害。例如，如果一项法律禁止“在街上”的特定行为，立法者可能会——也可能不会——打算禁止在俯瞰道路的一楼阳台上进行同样的行为。