为了指引对制定法的解释,美国各州的立法机关已将法律解释的“经验法则”(rules of thumb)编纂成了各种法典化规范,但是却鲜有学者关注和讨论这些法典化活动。借助美国立法机关的解释性偏好与解释普通法规范之比较,本文将予以探究,解释普通法规范以及主要的制定法解释理论,是否契合立法机关对其立法应被如何解释的相关预期。由于解释规范属于普通法,所以不管是否支持解释规范的立法化,解释规范都应该包含在这些规范的商谈之中,而且也应该被认为是重要的,具有相应的约 To guide the interpretation of statutory law, the legislatures in the various states of the United States have codified the “rules of thumb” of legal interpretation into a variety of codified norms, but few scholars have paid attention and discussed these codification activities . With the comparison between the interpretive preferences of American legislature and the interpretation of common law norms, this article will explore whether the common law norms and major theories of statutory interpretation fit the expectation of the legislature on how its legislation should be interpreted. As interpretative norms are common law, interpretative norms should be included in the negotiations of these norms, and should be considered as important, with corresponding conventions, whether or not supporting the legislative interpretation of interpretative norms