de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

Sylvie Patron

To cite this version:

SYLVIE PATRON

Introduction

The identification of interpretive models and methods across different disciplines, notably in the humanities, is one of the major objectives of the HERMES (Histories and Theories of Interpretation) research programme directed by Françoise Lavocat at the University of Paris Diderot-Paris 7. In the field of the theory of literary narrative, the issue of interpretation raises particular difficulties linked to the history of the discipline, or field of research, and its recent development (currently seen as the progression from -classical‖ to -postclassical‖ narratology 1 ). On the 12th and 13th of December 2008, a bilingual, international conference entitled Théorie, analyse, interprétation des récits/ Theory, analysis, interpretation of narratives was held at the University of Paris Diderot-Paris 7 thanks to joint funding from the French National Research Agency, which finances the HERMES programme, and the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies and Research in the Department of Literature, Arts and Cinema (CERILAC). Sixteen scholars from Germany, Belgium, France, Japan, North America and Switzerland were invited to study and discuss three issues or sets of issues.

1. The relations between the theory, analysis and interpretation of narrative. What role should theory play in the analysis and interpretation of narrative? What, in turn, might be the effect of the 1

The expression is David Herman's (see Herman 1999: 2-3). It signifies that -postclassical‖ narratology includes so-called -classical‖ narratology (developed by Roland Barthes, Tzvetan Todorov, Gérard Genette, Mieke Bal, Gerald Prince, Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan, etc.) as one of its stages, but is also characterized by a profusion of new methods and research hypotheses. Its usage does not usually take theories offering an alternative to narratology into account (such as those developed by Käte Hamburger, S.-Y. Kuroda and Ann Banfield. See Patron 2009, 24 et passim and pp. 147-148 of the present volume).

analysis and interpretation of narrative on narrative theory? Does taking the question of analysis and interpretation into consideration make it possible, for example, to choose between competing theories? Or finally, should narrative theory exclude certain types of modern -narrative‖, as Nicolas Ruwet suggests, speaking of poetry? 2 2. The relations between analysis and the "everyday" reading of narratives. Should analysis account for what goes on in -everyday‖ readings of narrative? Do studies conducted on empirical groups of readers modify the analysis or even the theory of narrative? What should we make, for example, of the emphasis on the opposition between fictional narrative and non-fictional narrative in narrative theory, and the negation of the same opposition in works of cognitive psychology?

3. The historical and cultural scope of narrative theory. How do classicists or specialists of Medieval literature, or non-Western literature, define the limits of the pertinence of the hypotheses and concepts of narrative theory to the analysis and interpretation of their respective narrative corpora?

The term -theory‖ is understood to refer to a set of hypotheses, concepts and conclusions concerning narrative in general and to imply that, like all scientific theories, it is distinguished by its essential relation to truth and falsehood. -Analysis‖ is understood to refer to a set of methods and tools aimed at enabling a more accurate or precise description of narratives or of certain narratives in particular. Last, -interpretation‖ is understood to refer to the process by which the reader or critic, faced with the linear manifestation of a particular narrative, lends it meaning and, in the case of the critic, attempts to explain how the narrative produces such semantic interpretations or other meanings. The present volume contains the acts of the conference held in December 2008 with slight modifications relating to the number and range of contributions.

*

The history of the relations between the theory, analysis and interpretation of literary narratives from the late 1960s (emergence of narratology as a discipline or field of research) to the 1990s and beyond (narratology -revisited‖, 3 identification of postclassical narratology, new relevance attached to alternative theories to narratology) would merit more thorough investigation. For the moment I will simply offer a few pointers.

1. The interpretive abstinence of narratology. Sylvère Lotringer uses this expression with reference to poetics (structuralist poetics in general and Tzvetan Todorov's in particular). 4 Narratology, generally seen as a branch of poetics, objects to interpretation due to its alleged subjectivity, which is rooted in the apprehension of the work by the critic-interpreter. See Todorov: -The sense (or function) of an element of the work is its potential to enter into correlation with other elements of this work, and with the entire work [...]. It is not the same with regard to interpretation. The interpretation of an element differs according to the personality of the critic, his ideological positions or his era. To be interpreted, an element is included in a system which is not that of the work but that of the critic‖. 5 Narratology sides with neutral, objective, definitive description (-Each element of a work has one or more senses [...] which are finite in number and which it is possible to establish once and for all‖ 6 ) and leaves the task of the 3 See the three special issues of the journal Poetics Today entitled -Narratology Revisited‖ (McHale and Ronen 1990a, 1990b[START_REF]Narratology Revisited (III)‖[END_REF]. 4

See Lotringer (1971: 197). 5 [START_REF] Todorov | The Categories of Literary Narrative[END_REF]Todorov ( [1966: 3-4): 3-4). The opposition between sense (function, functional potential to enter into correlation) and interpretation (meaning produced by the critic-interpreter) is also central to the work of A. J. Greimas, even if the latter calls Todorov's -sense‖ -interpretation‖ (see [START_REF] Greimas | Eléments pour une théorie de l'interprétation du récit mythique‖[END_REF][START_REF] Greimas | Eléments pour une théorie de l'interprétation du récit mythique‖[END_REF]). There is no other significant mention of interpretation in Barthes (ed.) (1981 [1966]). 6 [START_REF] Todorov | The Categories of Literary Narrative[END_REF][START_REF] Todorov | The Categories of Literary Narrative[END_REF]: 4).

interpretation or, potentially, of the evaluation of narrative to criticism. For Gérard Genette, refusing interpretation takes the specific form of refusing -to impose coherence‖, which is dependant only on the persuasive faculties of the critic-interpreter: -[...] but it would be unfortunate, it seems to me, to seek ‗unity' at any price, and in that way to force the work's coherencewhich is, of course, one of criticism's strongest temptations, one of its most ordinary (not to say most common) ones, and also one most easy to satisfy, since all it requires is a little interpretive rhetoric‖ 7 ; -I still feel as much repugnance toward those impositions of ‗coherence' that interpretive criticism carries off so glibly‖. 8 Certain narratologists show more consideration for criticism and its concerns. Mieke Bal even postulates a complementary relation between criticism on the one hand and narratology (seen as -general‖ narratology) and the science of literature on the other: -The objects of criticismthe analysis, interpretation and evaluation of textsrequire a constant interaction between criticism, narratology and the science of literature. If criticism can benefit, for its activities, from the information the other two disciplines provide, the latter need criticism to verify the concepts they propose.‖ 9 However, all agree that narratology as a discipline or field of research is not concerned with the interpretation or evaluation of narratives, nor even with explaining the way interpretation and evaluation of narratives work. 10 It should be noted that the representatives of alternative theories to narratology do not differ from narratologists on this point. Ann Banfield speaks of -what is conceived traditionally as the proper object of literary criticism, as opposed to literary theory: questions concerning individual writers' creative selection and combination of forms latent in language, questions concerning the relation between biography (the ‗life') and history (the ‗time') and the work itself, 7 Genette (1983: 266). 8 Genette (1990: 155). 9 Bal (1977: 14), my translation. Also see the preface to the first edition of Bal (1997Bal ( , 2004Bal ( [1985]]: ix-x). 10 With the exception of Tamar Yacobi's work on the interpretation of inconsistencies in narrative, or in certain narratives (see [START_REF] Yacobi | -Fictional Reliability as a Communicative Problem‖[END_REF].

analyses of the compatibility of style and meaning, questions of interpretation, and judgments of literary value‖. 11 2. The Lanser-Diengott debate (or feminist narratology debate). This exchange marks an important moment in the history of the relations between the theory, analysis and interpretation of narratives and, at the same time, clearly indicates the position of classical narratology. In 1986, Susan S. Lanser published an article called -Toward a Feminist Narratology‖, in which she asks -whether feminist criticism and particularly the study of narratives by women, might benefit from the methods and insights of narratology and whether narratology, in turn, might be altered by the understandings of feminist criticism and the experience of women's texts‖. 12 Lanser puts forward three main reasons for explaining why feminist criticism and narratology (understood as -that branch of poetics concerned with defining and describing all aspects of narrative‖ 13 ) ignore each other: indifference to the issue of gender in narratology, whether in designating a canon or formulating questions or hypotheses; the mimetic understanding of narrative and its elements (in particular its characters) in feminist criticism and the semiotic understanding of the same elements in narratology; the importance given to the context of the production and reception of texts in feminist criticism and, by contrast, the decontextualization of narratives carried out by narratology. She shows, based on the study of an example, the form that collaboration between feminist criticism and narratology might take. In 1988, Nilli Diengott replied to Lanser's article in -Narratology and Feminism‖. Basing her argument on the division of literary studies put forward by Benjamin Hrushovsky, 14 she asserts that -what Lanser has to say about the issues on which narratology and feminist criticism differ is inherent to the object and methods of inquiry that narratology as a theoretical poetics is focused on. Her analysis is based on a confusion of theoretical poetics with other fields within the study of literature, such as interpretation, historical poetics, 11 Banfield (1983: 204). 12 Lanser (1986: 342). 13 Idem: 362, n. 6. 14 See [START_REF] Hrushovsky | Poetics, Criticism, Science: Remarks on the Fields and Responsibilities of the Study of Literature‖, PTL[END_REF].

or criticism‖. 15 For Diengott, -Gender can be of great significance [...] in interpretation [...]. But interpretation is not narratology, not theoretical poetics‖, -Obviously Lanser is interested in interpretation, but narratology is a totally different activity‖. 16 Diengott's article today is mainly of historical interest, even if some of the issues its raises (for example that of the relations between the -system of literature‖ and the literary works themselves, or that of the definition of context 17 ) have a more general epistemological value.

3. New narratologies. -Contextualist narratology‖, -feminist narratology‖, -rhetorical narratology‖, -‗natural' narratology‖, -cognitive narratology‖, -historical and cultural narratology‖, etc.: the 1990s witnessed an explosion of new forms of narratology. They all take up problems, such as context, gender, rhetorical transactions between authors, narrators and different types of receivers, the cognitive processes involved in narrative understanding, etc., which narratology had voluntarily or involuntarily ignored, and question the emphasis laid on description to the detriment of the interpretation and evaluation of narratives. As Ansgar Nünning remarks in relation to what he terms -contextualist, thematic and ideological approaches‖, most -are not really ‗narratologies' in that they are merely applications of narratological models and categories to specific texts, genres, or periods. With the possible exception of feminist narratology, which has arguably contributed genuinely narratological insights, shedding new light on ‗narrative qua narrative' (Prince 1995a: 79), most of the contextualist, thematic, and ideological approaches have been concerned with issues that are not really germane to narratology‖. 18 Nünning therefore proposes a distinction between -applications of narratology‖, or -narratological criticism‖ 15 Diengott (1988: 46). 16 Idem: 45, 49. 17 See ibid.: 44-45 and 46, Lanser (1988: 55 and 56), Prince (1995: 77-78 and 78-82) and Roussin in the present volume (pp. 48, 53-54). 18 [START_REF] Nünning | Narratology or Narratologies?[END_REF][START_REF] Nünning | Narratology or Narratologies?[END_REF]: 251). Note that Nünning's -thematic approaches‖ do not designate the same reality as Raphaël Baroni's -thematic narratology‖ in the present volume (188,191). Baroni's -thematic narratology‖ is equivalent to -story (oriented) narratology‖ or -syntactic narrative theory‖ in Nünning's article.

(an expression used by Gerald Prince 19 ), and -narratology properly speaking‖, specifying that it is not so much a binary opposition as a gliding scale between two poles. 4. The Darby-Kindt and Müller debate (or contextualist narratology debate). The article published in 2001 by David Darby entitled -Form and Context: An Essay in the History of Narratology‖ provoked two sorts of reaction. The first concerned the comparison it put forward between German narrative theory and structuralist narratology and its main developments in the United States. 20 The second, which is the one that interests me here, concerns the reorientation it advocates in favour of a -contextualist‖ or -functionalist‖ narratology, 21 associating narratological analysis and the interpretation of narratives in the context of their production and reception, with the implied author as a key concept. In -Narratology and Interpretation: A Rejoinder to David Darby‖, Tom Kindt and Hans-Harald Müller show the limits of Darby's historical and epistemological study (-A Paradigm Shift‖ 22 ) and present the concept of the implied author as -an endless source of conceptual confusion‖. 23 -Like most contextualist manifestos‖, they argue, -Darby's examination of previous work in the field creates the false impression of an obligation to choose between a classic structuralist theory of narrative that rejects interpretation of literary texts and a contextualist-functionalist narratology that includes such interpretation. The comparison leaves out the possibility of understanding narratology as a heuristic tool rather than a theory of interpretation‖. 24 Like Nünning, they consider that, in practice, the 19 See Prince (1995: 77). 20 See [START_REF] Fludernik | History of Narratology: A Rejoinder‖[END_REF]. 21 The expression -contextualist narratology‖ stems from Seymour Chatman (see [START_REF] Chatman | What Can We Learn from Contextualist Narratology?‖[END_REF]); the adjective -functionalist‖ from Meir Sternberg (see Sternberg 1992: 529). 22 Kindt and Müller (2003a: 415). 23 Idem: 417. On the implied author, also see Kindt and Müller (2006). 24 Kindt and Müller (2003a: 416). Reference is made to Kindt and Müller (2003b); see, notably: 211-215. Note that Darby never uses the expression -theory of interpretation‖ while Kindt and Müller, in their different works and articles on the question, are not entirely clear on its meaning, which is synonymous at contextualist approach is more a form of criticism than of narratology:

-As far as we can see, contextualist analyses of narrative have so far limited themselves to applying the vocabulary of classic narratology in interpretive contexts. Instead of presenting a new conception of narratology, they merely demonstrate the heuristic usefulness of traditional narrative theory.‖ 25 5. Kindt and Müller have published several works and articles dealing in full or in part with the issue of the relations between narratology, or narrative theory more generally, and interpretation. 26 They are also responsible for a taxonomy of positions held within narratology regarding interpretation (-autonomist‖, -contextualist‖, -foundationalist‖ and -heuristic‖ 27 ) and an attempt to define the requirements narratology needs to fulfil in order to be what they term -an interpretive heuristic‖. 28 It is unfortunate, however, that they have also contributed to focussing attention on the problem put to narratology by contextualist approaches to the detriment of other ways of viewing the relations between narrative theory and interpretation. Last, despite a considerable difference of calibre, their position resembles Diengott's on a number of points: defence of traditional narratology, seen as a non-problematic source of knowledge; strict opposition between description and interpretation (whatever constitutes description is not interpretation and vice versa); refusal of the -corpus argument‖, according to which narratological models and methods might be modified by extending the narratological corpus; viewing narrative theory as an analytic discipline working with concepts (like philosophy) and not as an empirical discipline or field of research (like linguistics for example).

times with -approach‖ or -interpretive grid‖ (such as feminism, psychoanalysis or indeed Marxism, which they do not mention) and at others with -general theory of interpretation‖ (such as Umberto Eco's, for example). 25 Kindt and Müller (2003a: 417, n. 14). The sentence is repeated in almost identical form in Kindt and Müller (2003b: 210-211). 26 See [START_REF] Kindt | Remarques à propos de l'évolution de la critique d'une notion entre narratologie et théorie de l'interprétation‖[END_REF]Muller (2003b, 2006: 63-148), Kindt (2007: 65-78) and ( 2008). 27 See Kindt and Muller (2003b: 206-209). Also see Roussin in the present volume (50-51). 28 See Kindt and Müller (2003b: 209 and 211-215).

*

To my mind, an interesting object of study in the context of the HERMES programme and the Theory, Analysis, Interpretation of Narratives conference more specifically was the manner in which the application of narratological models and methods (which are in principle non-interpretive, since they deal with the similarities between the work and other works, whereas interpretation is supposed to identify what makes it unique) determines the properties of the work and thereby prescribes a particular interpretive framework. My position is aligned to feminist narratology and certain -postmodernist‖ developments on this point. See Lanser: -Formalist-structuralist narratology may ‗know' that its categories are not immanent, but it proceeds as if they were ‗a stable and immediately knowable text, directly available to classificatory operations that are themselves neutral and innocent of interpretive bias' . Feminist criticism has simply not had this luxury: in its critique of masculine bias, it has of necessity taken the view that theory sometimes says more about the reader than about the text‖. 29 See also Andrew Gibson's study of voice, from which I shall quote only a few lines: -Genette argues that ‗every narrative resonates with voice' and the concept of voice is actually indispensable to Genettian narratology [...]. [But] Genette never problematizes the idea of voice. While the manifestations of narrative voice can be classified, voice itself simply exists as an essence‖. 30 Gibson insists on the fact that -narratology based on voice is itself part of a particular cultural and ideological universe‖ and adds that -other conceptions of narrative are possible.‖ 31 I could also cite David Herman in his introduction to Narratologies: New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis (1999) and Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan, from the postface to the new edition of Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (2002), both of whom show their allegiance to postclassical narratology by acknowledging, notably, that description is never neutral and never entirely separate from interpretation. 32 * The book is divided into three sections, which retain the titles of the three sessions of the conference. It begins with two general articles, the first by Tom Kindt and Hans-Harald Müller, the second by Philippe Roussin. Kindt and Müller's article, which develops their earlier studies and articles without concluding the series (-What, Then, Is Narratology? A Next-to-Last Look‖), concerns the status, structure and function of narratology. Its authors notably reassert, against contextualist approaches, that narratology can and must be viewed as an interpretive heuristic only. In the second part of their analysis, they argue against the idea that success or failure encountered in the application of the models and methods of a theory is a criterion (or at least a sufficient criterion) for evaluating the theory. (This passage is aimed essentially at Franz K. Stanzel and his -verificationist‖ or -confirmationist‖ position regarding the evaluation of theories). They suggest replacing the practical application criterion by a set of criteria dealing exclusively with the concepts used by the theory. The article by Philippe Roussin, who adopts a very different position from Kindt and Müller regarding contextualism, situates the evolution from classical narratology to postclassical narratology within the larger framework of the evolution of the humanities and social sciences since the 1960s (return to the forefront of the problematics of hermeneutics and interpretation, the -narrative turn‖ in history, sociology, psychology, etc.). Roussin notably points out that, in a significant reversal, being set in a context is no longer considered to be either an essential or an incidental property of narrative, but rather, today narrativity itself is seen as a property dependent on context. He shows the problems that immediately arise, however, on attempting to define narrative context. Brian Richardson's article on the fictional narratives he calls -unusual‖, -unnatural‖ or -non-mimetic‖ in relation to real world narratives provides a transition between the general articles and those based on case studies. Richardson puts forward several arguments in favour of including such narratives in the narrative theory corpus. He also emphasizes classical narratology's mimetic bias, which can be perceived in its understanding of history and narrative (approached via temporality), of the narrator and narrating (approached via the opposition between homodiegesis and heterodiegesis) and of character (a realist, anthropomorphic understanding). He emphasizes the unusual character of a situation where -categories are produced for potential but currently nonexistent narrative types, as found in the work of Todorov and others, even as existing, influential, and prizewinning narratives are ignored‖ 33 and calls for a reconfiguration of narrative theory based on an empirical examination of existing narratives. The next four articles are based entirely or in part on case studies. Henrik Skov Nielsen's agrees with Richardson's in its critique of unified theories of narrative, which define all narratives in relation to conversational narratives, which are seen as prototypical, and in its insistence on the not only un-prototypical, but also completely untypical character of fictional narratives. Based on several examples, including James Frey's A Million Little Pieces, Nielsen shows that the concept of the author as creator of potentially unnatural and noncommunicational forms needs to be studied anew, in lieu of the concept of the narrator as used in unified theories, if fictional narratives are to be interpreted correctly. The article by James Phelan (whom Nielsen cites among the representatives of unifying theories, but whose work also bears witness to his interest in the interpretation and evaluation of narratives) is a convincing exploration of -what Kafka and a rhetorical narrative theory can do for each other‖: rhetorical narrative theory makes it possible to determine certain effects which make -Das Urteil‖ (-The Verdict‖) powerful, while the critical reading of Kafka's story enriches the theory on a number of points. John Pier's article on John Barth's Lost in the Funhouse illustrates the fact that all narrative works of a certain complexity (and a fortiori an extremely complex narrative work like Barth's) represents a challenge for narrative theory (in this instance, the theory of embedded narrative as presented by Genette in particular). My own article on Juan Rulfo's Pedro Páramo differs from the preceding articles in that it starts with a theoretical opposition, the opposition between -communicational‖ and -noncommunicational‖ or "poetic‖ theories of fictional narrative, and sets out to put the two theories to the test of an empirical micro-reading. My article has some views in common with Nielsen's, but it also differs by affirming the need to distinguish, in fictional narrative, between elements pertaining to the content of the fictional representation and those pertaining to the means employed to construct that representation (this distinction is close to the one made by Phelan between -mimetic‖ components and -synthetic‖ components in fictional narratives).

The second section, entitled -Analysis and the ‗everyday' reading of narrative‖ contains far fewer articles than the first. However, it is clear that several articles in the first section (those by Richardson, Phelan and myself in particular) contain passages which are directly related to the problematics of the second. This section opens with an article by Raphaël Baroni dealing with the postclassical understanding of plot and its difference from the classical, structuralist understanding of narrative sequentiality (accent placed on the reader's interpretive performance and its passional and cognitive dimensions; critique of the separation between thematic narratology, or the narratology of history, and discursive narratology; critique of narrative sequentiality being abandoned for the former; reevaluation of the discursive dimension of plot). Baroni's reader is no specialist reader, but an everyday reader who presses ahead and, led by powerful semanticism, is carried away by the story told. The two following articles form an antagonistic diptych about the distinction between fictional narratives and nonfictional narratives. Jérôme Pelletier's article, -Du récit à la fiction: un point de vue de philosophie cognitive‖ (-From narrative to fiction: a cognitive philosophical viewpoint‖) takes the results of several brain-imaging experiments compared with hypotheses put forward by psychologists on the comprehension of narratives and asserts that -there is no basis for distinguishing between the mental faculties put into action in the cognitive analysis of fictional and nonfictional narratives‖34 (although Pelletier postulated the existence of a -fictional skill‖ defined as the capacity to manage cognitions and emotions in a manner adapted to representations of a fictional type). Marc Hersant's article, -Hercule travesti: la fiction, une impasse pour l'interprétation des Mémoires de Saint-Simon‖ (-Hercules distorted: fiction, a dead end for interpreting Saint-Simon's Memoires‖), shows the necessity of the distinction, in an equally convincing manner, for understanding and interpreting a work like Saint-Simon's. It is worth noting that Hersant does not claim allegiance to narratology, which he reminds us has only recently discovered the distinction between fictional and nonfictional narrative, but rather appears to find more food for thought in Käte Hamburger's narrative theory: -A passionate or neurotic relationship to occurrences is not to be confused with the creative freedom of pure fiction in the sense of the author of The Logic of Literature. The subjective distortion of reality, contrary to what is often written, is the opposite of fiction.‖ 35The third section, which deals with the historical and cultural range of narrative theory, contains four articles which can be grouped two by two. The first, by Michèle Gally, concerns the medieval French novel and its relation to the -conte‖, or tale, understood both as the conte it is no longer and revendicates no longer being, as shown in Chrétien de Troyes's prologues, and the conte frequently called upon as the origin of the story recounted (in the well-known formulae -Or dist li contes que...‖, -Or se taist atant li contes‖, etc.). For Michèle Gally, it amounts to a legitimizing strategy involving several dimensions: the linguistic dimension of the opposition between Latin and French; the -mediological‖ (my adjective) dimension of the opposition between oral and written, and the religious dimension of the relationship to auctoritas. At several points, she suggests that noncommunicational or poetic theories of fiction, which focus on the work of the author, are better adapted to dealing with such narratives than communicational theories, which focus on the discourse of the (or a) narrator. Patricia Eichel-Lojkine's article, -Comment interpréter un objet variable, le conte?‖ (-Interpreting a variable object: the folktale‖) deals with classic European tales and concerns methodology more than theory in the strict sense. Taking Perrault's -Puss in Boots‖ and comparing it to Straparola's and Basile's stories of astute cats, it shows the potential of combining a -phylogenetic‖ approach to the tale, taking its insertion into a series of texts and intertextual motifs into account, with an -ontogenetic‖ approach focussing on its particular arrangement. The last two articles are the work of specialists in Japanese literature and, in different ways, question the idea that Western narrative theory is universal and applicable to all cultures (the question is already raised in Richardson's article concerning unnatural fictional narratives). In -La narratologie a-t-elle des frontières linguistiques et culturelles?‖ (-Does narratology have linguistic and cultural borders?‖), Akihiro Kubo offers an interesting presentation of Sadakazu Fujii's narrative theory, focusing on the concepts of the -zero-person‖ and -fourth person‖, seen as emblematic of Fujii's -Asian perspective‖. His article also sheds light on the problems concealed by our terminology regarding issues such as the oral or written character of narrative, the understanding of the situation of production of the narrative or of the linguistic inscription of the narrator in the narrative. Finally, in -La littérature japonaise et le sujet flottant: jalons d'une esthétique‖ (-Japanese literature and the floating subject: pointers towards an aesthetics‖), Cécile Sakai examines the way in which certain Japanese authors (Natsume Sôseki, Yasunari Kawabata, Haruki Murakami) have taken advantage of the potential made available by the absence of a grammatically expressed subject in Japanese sentences. She calls for -the development of a critical apparatus, in narrative theory, adapted to a configuration of gaps‖36 and contributes to the initiative with her own analyses. These two articles and my own show a common interest in translation and the interpretive issues involved.

The collection as a whole, in its richness and variety, with its omissions and, sometimes, its contradictions, which no attempt has been made to hide, forms a stimulating introduction to the study of the issues raised by the relations between the theory, analysis and interpretation of literary narratives, which deserves further attention in

Lanser (1986: 345).

Gibson (1996: 144). -Every narrative resonates with voice‖ is a quotation from Marc Blanchard, paraphrasing Genette (seeBlanchard 1992: 65).

See Herman (1999: 12) andRimmon-Kenan (2002: 139). Herman's sentence is quoted in[START_REF] Nünning | Narratology or Narratologies?[END_REF][START_REF] Nünning | Narratology or Narratologies?[END_REF]: 245, n. 6).

Cf. p. 227, my translation.

Cf. p. 261, my translation.

Cf. p. 326, my translation.

individual and joint research projects, as indeed several of the articles suggest. * I would like to thank all those who took part in the Théorie, analyse, interprétation des récits/ Theory, analysis, interpretation of narratives conference (including Gunther Martens and Françoise Revaz, in addition to the contributors to this volume), Marc Hersant, who was so kind as to add his contribution to the second section, the members of the editorial committee for the volume: Claire Badiou-Monferran, Franck Bauer, Guiomar Hautcoeur, Françoise Lavocat, Gilles Philippe, John Pier, Cécile Sakai and Régis Salado. I would also like to thank Françoise Lavocat as coordinator of the HERMES programme and Francis Marmande as director of CERILAC. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Claude Murcia and Marie-Cécile Patron for their help in putting together my own article. Finally, thanks to Marie Ladame-Buschini, for her help with the translations, and to Malika Combes for the layout.

Please note that James Phelan's article is to be published in English in a collected volume on Kafka and is previewed here in French translation with permission of the publishers: James Phelan, -Progression, Speed, and Judgment in Kafka's Das Urteil‖, in Jakob Lothe, Beatrice Sandberg and Ronald Speirs, Franz Kafka: Narrative, Rhetoric, and Reading (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2011).

Paris, November 2009

Translated by Susan Nicholls


Narrateur: Introduction à la théorie du récit (Paris: Armand Colin)‖ (the correct subtitle is Introduction à la théorie narrative which replaces the author's initial choice: Un problème de théorie narrative [The Narrator: a problem in narrative theory]). Since the work was published in March 2009, when Uri Margolin had probably completed his article, he had three options: 1) completely ignore the work; 2) skim through the work, refer to it in his article and list it in the -Works Cited‖ ; 3) not read the work, but mention it in the bibliography (as needs must, in -Further Reading‖). Uri Margolin chose the third option which was clearly the worst both for him (for the scientific quality of his article) and for Le Narrateur (which, despite being the first ever monograph devoted entirely to the concept of the narrator in narrative theory, is relegated to -Further Reading‖ and thus, implicitly, to the works it is not really necessary to quote). Another hypothesis might be put forward which is more favourable to Uri Margolin, that the editors of the Handbook of Narratology added the reference to the bibliography without necessarily informing the author and without deference to the consequences their action might have for both the article and the work cited.

Second remark, or series of remarks, concerning the article itself. Despite quoting around forty books and articles, despite the sections and subsections offering multiple perspectives on the topic, Uri Margolin's article can be considered an ahistorical and a-critical presentation of the concept of the narrator in narratology.

1. An a-historical presentation. The lack of historicity is noticeable from the first section of the article p. 351). This short paragraph goes from a first definition of the narrator as -the inner-textual (textually encoded) speech position from which the current narrative discourse originates and from which references to the entities, actions and events that this discourse is about are being made‖ (in other words a mixture of Roland Barthes's definition in -Introduction to the Structuralist Analysis of Narratives‖ and a more recent referentialist perspective) to a second definition as -a presumed textually projected occupant of this position, the hypothesized producer of the current discourse, the individual agent who serves as the answer to Genette's question qui parle ?‖, via something Uri Margolin calls -a dual process of metonymic transfer and anthropomorphization‖. But the order of presentation does not correspond to any real or imaginary genealogy (in the sense of a theoretical imagination, expressions of which may be found elsewhere). Contrary to Uri Margolin's claim, in the history of the concept of the narrator, the anthropomorphic component came first. I refer the reader to the introduction to Le Narrateur where I describe the traditional view of the narrator. In this view, the term -narrator‖ (used contrastively in relation to the term -author‖) designates the character who has the status of narrator in fictional memoires or the first-person novels. See Anna Laetitia Barbauld, Samuel Richardson's biographer (1804) : -[…] it [the genre] confines the author's stile, which should be suited, though it is not always, to the supposed talents and capacity of the imaginary narrator‖; or Honoré de Balzac, in his preface to Le Lys dans la vallée (1835-1836): -Although it is a settled case, many people today are still fool enough to make the writer party to the feelings he attributes to his characters; and if he uses the pronoun ‗I', almost all are tempted to confuse him with the narrator‖. The second section of Uri Margolin's article is characterized by the same a-historicism or presentism.

The origin of concepts or ideas is rarely noted or when it is, it is done so erroneously or partially erroneously. The terms sujet de l'énoncé and sujet de l'énonciation cannot be found in the work of Émile Benveniste, as Uri Margolin implies; on the contrary, they are a later invention stemming from psychoanalysis. It is surprising, by contrast, not to find any mention of the opposition which did originate from Benveniste, between énonciation de discours and énonciation historique (the latter can be described as enunciative effacement or withdrawal, or non-enunciation).

When Uri Margolin's presentation intends to be historical and epistemological, as the title of the third section (-History of the Concept and its Study‖, suggests, it contains errors and approximations. 356)the problem being that the debate dealt initially with authorial, not narratorial, intrusions in the sense of a narrator as distinct from the author (except perhaps in Käte Friedemann's work, where some formulations might be seen to anticipate narratological ones). One last example: on pages 352, 353 and 364, Uri Margolin projects the narratological understanding of the narrator onto the view held by Mixail Baxtin, who uses the term -author‖ to refer to the entity Margolin calls the -narrator‖, and -narrator‖ for the narrator of first-person fictional narrative (which he terms Ich-Erzählung) and for the skaz narrator (which has no European, i.e. essentially English, French or German, equivalent).

2. An a-critical or a-problematic presentation. This characteristics is shown, first, in the abundance of propositions in the form of postulates, starting with the postulate of the distinction between author and narrator: -The narrator which is a strictly textual category, should be clearly distinguished from the author who is of course an actual person‖ (p. 351). (Uri Margolin is apparently unaware that the distinction stems from the traditional understanding of the narrator and originally implies not a textual category, but rather a fictional character, in other words a character existing in a fictional world which is indeed constructed by a text, as opposed to a real person, in other words a person existing in the real world of reference.) Other examples of postulates: -Since narrative utterances are a subset of the universe of utterances, they too must therefore contain a sayer‖; -For a claim to be made, there needs to be an agent who makes this claim, hence the narrator‖ (p. 352). (These two postulates could easily be contested on the basis of a simple consideration, to wit, that the narratives in question are literary narratives and therefore have an author, so that there is not logical or pragmatic necessity to also have a narrator as distinct from the author.) Other examples: -The whole essence of narrative would be missed if one were to deny the textual existence of a narrator as a stylistic and ideological position‖ (p. 353) ; -Using the narrated system as our point of departure, the main distinction is between narratives in which the narrator also participates in the narrated events (first-person narrative) and those in which he does not (second-and third-person narratives)‖ (p. 363) ; -By producing the words on the page, the author has given rise in such cases to a substitutionary speaker who performs the macro speech act of reporting and who is solely responsible for all claims, specific and general, made in his report (on this issue, Ryan 1981 ; Martínez-Bonati 1996)‖ (p. 365). All these postulates are those of classical narratology revamped with a few terminological variations by postclassical narratology. They could easily be contested in both theory and practice (the concrete analysis of a specific fictional narrative) -I have in mind the postulate that the essence of narrative would be missed if the textual existence of a narrator as a stylistic and ideological position were denied; in my article in the Journal of Literary Theory I have recently attempted to show the aporia resulting from postulating the existence of a narrator in cases where, empirically, there is none. On pages 355 to 356, also without the slightest critical distance, Uri Margolin adopts Seymour Chatman's continuum approach (according to the -degree of narratorhood‖) from Story and Discourse -it would not be difficult to show that Chatman's work aims beyond its linguistic and epistemological means and is dependent on an established critical tradition from which it retains knowledge gained, but also a number of presuppositions. On pages 351,352,353,354,365,366 and 367,Uri Margolin internalizes and reproduces an ambiguity which is frequent among narratologists, confusing the idea of internality or textuality (which takes its meaning from the linguistic or semiological opposition between -internal‖ and -external‖, or -textual‖ and -extratextual‖) and the idea of fictionality (which takes its meaning from the ontological opposition between -real‖ and -fictional‖). However, if his presentation is a-critical or a-problematic, it is also, above all, because it fails to mention debates both within and beyond narratology, with the naturalizing, dogmatic result illustrated by the preceding quotations. A few examples of internal debates: the debate between the early and the more recent Chatman (who, in Coming to Terms, revises certain claims in Story and Discourse concerning the absence of a narrator in particular fictional narratives); the contradiction between the typological and the linguistic approach in Lubomír Doležel's Narrative Modes in Czech Literature (which Uri Margolin does not mention). One last example: the debate concerning the possibility of the narrator (or pseudo-narrator) in third-person fictional narratives being -unreliable‖, to use Wayne Booth's term -I do not believe that this is a true debate, but I do consider that more than just a passing affirmation would be needed to settle the question (see p. 359: -Personalized narrators, and only personalized ones, may on occasion be deemed by the reader as unreliable [...]‖). The most important debates are of course those which set narratology, defined as a narratorial theory of narrative (or a narrator-in-every-narrative theory) against alternative theories, which can be defined as poetic theories of narrative (or optional narrator theories, where the narrator is an option available to the author). In Uri Margolin's article, these theories are expedited in a few lines: -Hamburger (1957), for example, has argued that one can meaningfully speak of a narrator figure only in first-person narratives, while in all other cases the narrator is a mere metonymy for a narrative textual function‖ (it should be noted that the idea of -metonymy‖ is not mentioned by Käte Hamburger); - [START_REF] Banfield | Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction[END_REF] has argued on linguistic grounds that the notion of narrator is meaningful only in cases of overt, foregrounded narration, such as the skaz‖ (p. 365). Margolin has made an error in the latter presentation: Ann Banfield does not assert that the notion of narrator is meaningful only in cases of overt, foregrounded narration, such as the skaz; like Käte Hamburger before her, she states that one can only speak of a fictional narrator in the case of the narrator of a first-person fictional narrative and that, even in this case, the narrator need not necessarily be considered as a speaker, in the sense of the speaker in everyday communicationexcept in the type of first-person narrative she calls skaz, which is not strictly coextensive with skaz in Russian formalism and the identification of which, in addition, poses certain difficulties. As for Richard Walsh, whom Uri Margolin gives the last word on the question, it is clear that his proposition is no more than a variant of the traditional view of the narrator and narrating: there is narrator who is distinct from the author in first-person fictional narrative; in third-person fictional narrative the author narrates (or is the narrator). Käte Hamburger, S.-Y. Kuroda (whom Uri Margolin does not mention) and Ann Banfield went much further with their theoretical propositions by criticizing, notably, the assimilation of -narrating‖ in the case of a fictional narrator and -narrating‖ in the case of the author of a fictional narrative (Hamburger), and by using as a basis a linguistic analysis of communication as distinct from that which can be understood not to pertain to communication (Kuroda, Banfield). But Uri Margolin is aware of few of these theoretical propositions, as is shown for example by the obstinate reoccurrence in his article of the terms -communicative‖ and -communication‖ (-a communicative role‖, p. 351, -In terms of communication theory‖, p. 352, -an ongoing process of narrative communication‖, p. 353, -communicative intentions‖, p. 355, -the current communicative transaction‖, -an ongoing communicative exchange (telling)‖, -his/her communicative intentions‖, -in the communicative situation (narration)‖, -the illusion of face-to-face communication‖, p. 357, -in the ongoing communicative transaction‖, -the current communicative situation‖, -their communicative role‖, p. 363, -in a communication-based model‖, p. 366) or his recourse to the obsolete and unjustifiable hypothesis of the omniscient narrator (-Some, but by no means all, anonymous narrating voices telling their story in the third-person past tense are endowed with omniscience‖, p. 358, -authors sometimes endow personalized narrators with intermittent omniscience‖, p. 359, -an omniscient narrative voice‖, p. 365). In these conditions, the -Topics for Further Investigation‖ put forward by Margolin in the last section of his article (pp. 366-367) appear to be inessential or created purely by theory (-It is assumed here that the diarist and letter writer are narrators, yet Chatman (1978) denies this: is it because he implicitly identifies narrator with global narrator ?‖; -Can narrators be focalizers, and if so, when and to what extent ?‖, p 366; -Narrator unreliability as regards judgments and evaluations has been treated here entirely as a matter of readers' criteria, unlike factual unreliability, for which there are objective inner-textual indicators. Why has this view emerged only recently, and is the resistance to it associated with the implied author postulate ?‖, pp. 366-367).

To conclude, Margolin's articles offers a presentation of the concept of the narrator within narratology (and not in narrative theory considered as including, but not as limited to narratology). Nearly all necessary information regarding theories or theoretical nodes prior to narratology and alternative contemporary theories are lacking. Also lacking is the evaluative epistemological dimension which stems from theories themselves when they are sufficiently accountable for one another and do not persist in believing that they exist quite alone in superb isolation.

Trans. Susan Nicholls

  I will cite just a few examples. -Plato was the first to claim that the underlying difference between narrative and drama as basic types of discourse consists in the difference between directly showing and indirectly telling or reporting, rooted in the absence or presence respectively of a mediating instance between the character's speech and the audience‖ (p. 352)the problem being that Plato speaks of the -poet‖ and not of a narrator as distinct from the author (while Aristotle, on the other hand, implicitly speaks of a narrator in Chapter 3 of his Poetics). The presumed equivalence between diegesis and mimesis (Plato), telling and showing (Percy Lubbock), direct and indirect presentation (Norman Friedman) would also deserve closer enquiry. Another example: -The aesthetic desirability of such narratorial ‗intrusions' or ‗telling' beyond mere ‗showing' has been the object of heated critical debate since the 19 th century (e.g. Otto Ludwig, Friedrich Spielhagen, Käte Friedemann, Percy Lubbock and Wayne C. Booth)‖ (p.


Julien Kermorvant

Jean-Claude Mage

Bruno Marcilhac

Yves Lemaître

Jean-François Bobo

Cornelis Jacominus Van Der Beek

Microwave heating-induced DC magnetic flux penetration in YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7-δ superconducting thin films

Keywords: numbers: 74.25.N-, 74.25.Op, 74.25.Sv, 74.25.Wx, 74.78.-w I

The magneto-optical imaging technique is used to visualize the penetration of the magnetic induction in YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7-δ thin films during surface resistance measurements. The in-situ surface resistance measurements were performed at 7 GHz using the dielectric resonator method. When only the microwave magnetic field H rf is applied to the superconductor, no H rf -induced vortex penetration is observed, even at high rf power. In contrast, in the presence of a constant magnetic field superimposed on H rf we observe a progression of the flux front as H rf is increased. A local thermometry method based on the measurement of the resonant frequency of the dielectric resonator placed on the YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7-δ thin film shows that the H rf -induced flux penetration is due to the increase of the film temperature.

INTRODUCTION

High Temperature Superconductor (HTS) thin films are now recognized as particularly suitable for high frequency signal processing. Due to their very low surface resistance R s , as compared to normal metals, they allow for very efficient microwave signal filtering and detection. However, in the region of high power P rf of the incident microwave field, their application is limited by the strong dependence of R s on the P rf -magnitude. A nonlinear increase of the surface resistance with the input rf power is commonly observed, [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] leading to a detrimental decrease of the Q-factor of the devices. 10 The origin of the nonlinear microwave losses in high T c superconductors has been studied by many groups. Among the cited causes, there are intrinsic phenomena such as the excitation of quasiparticles when the current density induced by the microwave magnetic field (of magnitude H rf ) becomes of the order of the pair-breaking current density, 9 but also the limitation of the supercurrent in grain boundaries, and vortex motion 8,[15][16][17] in the superconductor induced by the rf field. The interplay of the superposed ac and dc magnetic fields in superconducting thin films is extensively described in Refs. 18-21. Recent work has, however, clearly demonstrated that it is simply local Joule heating of the superconducting film by the microwave field that leads to the nonlinear behavior, 4,5,7 and that the dissipation at the origin of the heating is due to the linear electromagnetic response of the films.

In Ref. 7, we have introduced a valuable tool for local thermometry of superconducting films studied using a dielectric resonator. The variation of the resonator frequency as a function of the temperature depends essentially on the dielectric constant of the resonator; its cal-ibration turns the latter into a precise local thermometer. This method has allowed us to measure the temperature of YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7-δ films as a function of the rf input power (at 10 GHz) under nominally isothermal conditions. The observed temperature increase of the resonator and the YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7-δ thin films as function of rf power unambiguously showed that the usually observed increase in the surface resistance is due to Joule heating, with a linear response dissipation mechanism. Candidate mechanisms at the origin of the heating can therefore be limited to quasi-particle dissipation 9,11 and flux-flow losses. [12][13][14][15][16][17] Here, we study the influence of an rf magnetic field MOI is based on the Faraday effect in which the rotation of the polarization plane of incident linearly polarized light is proportional to the magnetic induction component parallel to the wavevector of the incoming light. Since superconductors do not present a significant Faraday effect, one has to use a magneto-optical layer (MOL, with a strong Faraday effect) placed on top of a superconductor, as depicted in Fig. 1. In the experiments described below, we use, as a MOL, Lu-and Bi-doped Yttrium-Iron Garnet thick films 25 with a ferromagnetic resonance at 0.9 GHz (see Fig. 2). The application of a magnetic field of a few dozen mT will increase the ferromagnetic resonance frequency somewhat. However, at the experimental microwave field frequency of 7.0 GHz, the magnetization rotation leading to the Faraday effect will always be strongly overdamped, inhibiting the direct visualization of the microwave magnetic field. The MOI technique does permit the visualization of the modification of static flux structures in YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7-δ thin films following microwave field application. Note that the development of a similar imaging system was reported in Ref. 22, however, the influence of the microwave magnetic field on flux penetration was not reported there. Am -2 at T = 77 K.

II. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS

B. Magneto-Optical Imaging

The MOL is a 5 µm-thick (Lu,Bi) 3 (Fe,Ga) 5 O 12 ferrimagnetic garnet film with in-plane magnetic anisotropy, grown on a 500 µm-thick Gd 3 Gd 5 O 12 (GGG) substrate. 25 The MOL is covered by a 100 nm-thick Al mirror layer and a 10 nm-thick TiO 2 protective layer. It is placed face-down on the superconducting film (Fig. 1), whence it is observed through the transparent substrate using a polarized microscope with nearly crossed polarizers. In this configuration, the reflected light intensity increases as function of the local magnetic induction perpendicular to the garnet. Bright regions in the MO image correspond to regions of high magnetic flux density, while dark areas correspond to small or zero induction. This allows for the direct observation of magnetic flux penetration into the YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7-δ films. The calibration of the luminous intensity in the absence of the superconductor, or measured at a point that is sufficiently far removed from the superconductor, allows one to convert the spatially resolved intensity maps to maps of the absolute value of the magnetic induction.

C. Simultaneous MOI and Surface Resistance measurements

In order to measure the YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7-δ film's surface resistance during MOI, a number of specific modifications are required with respect to standard MOI and standard R s measurements. These are sketched in Fig. 3. First of all, we have chosen to use the dielectric resonator technique with a rutile-phase TiO 2 resonator (of diameter 7 mm and height 3 mm) operating at 10 GHz for the R s measurements. 7 However, the presence of the MOL, in close contact with the superconducting film, prohibits one from placing the dielectric resonator directly on the film. The resonator was therefore installed on the side of the MgO substrate. The resonator is pressed to the substrate by the bottom lid of the square Cu cavity (of width 30 mm and height 7 mm) in which the whole assembly is placed. The presence of the substrate between the resonator and the film shifts the resonant frequency from 10 GHz to 7 GHz. The MgO substrate exhibits a low microwave loss tangent, tan δ = 9 × 10 -6 , and high thermal conductivity, κ(90 K) = 290 Wm -1 K -1 . 26 Hence, it does not introduce additional losses, and negligible measurement error on both the temperature and the resonant frequency when the temperature of the superconductor rises. The microwave field is excited using the sweeper of a HP 8510C vector network analyzer through a coupling loop in the Cu cavity, the position of which can be adjusted at low temperature using an XYZ stage.

In usual MOI, the object to be imaged is cooled via di- rect thermal contact with a Cu sample holder attached to the cold head of the cryostat. For simultaneous R s /MOI measurements, the intercalation of the dielectric resonator, with its low thermal conductivity, 27 prohibits this configuration. Thus, thermal contact is made via the top of the imaged specimen, through the top lid of the Cu cavity. This imposes a reduction of the magneto-optically imaged area of the sample under study. Imaging is performed through a circular aperture of diameter 8 mm in the cavity top lid. The presence of the Al mirror layer on the MOL does not pose additional problems, since it is shielded from the TiO 2 resonator by the YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7-δ film.

III. RESULTS

A. MOI in dc magnetic field

Figures 4(a,c) present standard MO images obtained on a square-shaped 5 × 5 mm 2 YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7-δ film. The panels (a,c) illustrate the distribution of the magnetic induction in the superconducting film during the application of a constant magnetic field H a = 350 Oe perpendicular to the film plane at the cavity temperature of 50 K, while panels (b,d) show the effect of increasing the cavity temperature after zero field cooling to 30 K, the application of H a = 150 Oe and subsequent warming to 70 K. In all cases, the flux distribution accurately corresponds to the predictions of the Bean model, [28][29][30] which has that in the flux-penetrated areas of the film, the screening current density can only take on the value ±j c . The magnetic flux penetrates the superconductor from the edge of the sample, and is distributed according to the characteristic pillow-like shape expected for the divergence-free flow of the critical current in the thin film. 31 The flux distribution only depends on the parameter H a /j c , so that increasing either H a or temperature (with the concomitant decrease of j c ) both lead to a progression of the flux front to the film center. The position of the flux front, x f , verifies the relation

x f = w 1 - 1 cosh (πH a /j c d) (1)
in which w is the half-width of the YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7-δ film.

B. MOI with applied microwave magnetic field

In a first experiment, we have applied a microwave field to the superconductor, in the absence of a dc field. Since any magnetic flux should penetrate the superconducting film from the edge, we have used the right-hand Cu cavity cover of Fig. 3. The film was cooled in Earth's magnetic field, down to 60 K. After stabilization of the target temperature, the T E 011 -mode of the dielectric resonator was excited in the low-power regime (-10 dBm applied to the coupling loop). In this mode, the rf electric field is parallel to the plane of the superconducting film, while the rf magnetic field is perpendicular to it. Next, the microwave power was increased from -10 dBm to +24 dBm in steps of 3 dBm. At each input power level, the resonator frequency and Q-factor were measured and the corresponding MO image recorded.

Figure 5(a) renders the microwave power dependence of the surface resistance R s , while Fig. 5(b) shows the power dependence of the resonant frequency f 0 . No qualitative difference was observed with respect to the previously performed measurements at 10 GHz, with the resonator placed in direct contact with the superconducting film. 7 Both R s and the resonant frequency increase with rf power, indicating the nonlinear increase of microwave losses in the high microwave power regime.

Figure 6(b) shows the MO image obtained at an input power level of 24 dBm. According to the R s (P rf ) characteristics in Fig. 5(a), the superconductor is clearly in the lossy regime. However, MOI does not reveal any vortex penetration into the superconductor, even in the high power regime.

C. MOI with microwave and dc magnetic field

A second series of experiments was performed by adding a constant magnetic field to the rf field. The superconducting sample was again zero-field cooled to 60 K, following which a dc magnetic field of 130 Oe was applied perpendicularly to the film surface. This leads to the magnetic flux penetration illustrated in Fig. 7. Next, the microwave input was switched on in order to excite the dielectric resonator. The nominal temperature of the cold head and the dc magnetic field remain constant during the experiment. The microwave power was gradually increased in steps of approximately 3 dBm. At each input microwave power level the Q-factor and the resonant frequency of the resonator was measured and the corresponding MO image recorded. The obtained results concerning the power dependence of the surface resistance and the resonant frequency are again plotted in Figure 5. We observe the usual power dependence of the surface resistance of YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7-δ thin films, i.e., a nonlinear increase of R s as function of P rf . As shown by temperature dependence of f 0 depicted in Fig. 8, the simultaneous increase of the resonant frequency of the dielectric, here, by up to δf = 33.245 MHz for the highest injected power, can be understood as the result of local heating of the YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7-δ film. 7 The simultaneously acquired MO images show no progression of the flux front in the linear regime of R s (P rf ), but pronounced enhanced dc magnetic flux penetration in the nonlinear regime. A mechanism for ac magnetic field-induced dc flux penetration into thin superconducting films, the so-called vortex lattice shaking, was presented in Refs. 18-21. The conditions for vortex shaking to be effective are that the ac field strength be sufficient to drive the film into the critical state, which is the case here, and that the rf screening currents be of opposite polarity on the top and bottom film surfaces. In the present experimental configuration, the latter condition is not satisfied: the use of the T E 011 cavity mode means that the rf magnetic field to which the film is subjected induces screening currents of the same polarity on the top and bottom film surface, opposite in direction to the electric field in the rutile cavity.

We therefore surmise that the progression of the flux front is due to the decrease of the critical current density j c associated with the increase in temperature of the YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7-δ film, a conjecture that is checked by increasing the nominal temperature of the cold head and the sample holder using the incorporated heater, all the while maintaining a low microwave input power of 10 dBm. The temperature is adjusted so as to precisely yield a frequency change of the resonator δf = 33.245 MHz. We find that this corresponds to a temperature increase of ∆T = 2.586 K. The MOI (Fig. 10) shows that the flux penetration precisely corresponds to that previously obtained by increasing the microwave power, showing that local heating is indeed at the origin of the enhanced flux penetration and the nonlinear dependence R s ( P rf ).

IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a experimental set-up that allows for the simultaneous imaging of magnetic flux penetration into superconducting samples using the magnetooptical technique, and the measurement of their surface resistance in the range 1 -10 GHz. The method was applied to YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7-δ thin films. No signature of the microwave magnetic field could be observed in magnetooptics. However, the application of a high-power microwave magnetic field significantly enhances dc flux penetration due to local heating of the superconducting film.

FIG. 1 .FIG. 2 .

 12 FIG. 1. (Color online) Principle of MOI of superconductors. Thin drawn lines depict the magnetic flux as this traverses the superconductor and the MOL, thick black lines show the optical path of the impinging and reflected light, and the circled arrows illustrate the linear polarization direction of the light.

A. YBa 2

 2 Cu 3 O 7-δ films All YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7-δ films under study in this work were cut from the same wafer, designated SY211 in Ref. 7. The YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7-δ was deposited on a 500 µm-thick MgO substrate using cylindrical hollow cathode DC sputtering, and had a thickness d = 400 nm. Its critical temperature is T c 86 K and its critical current density j c = 5 × 10 10

FIG. 3 .

 3 FIG. 3. (Color online) Schematic view of the experimental assembly. Panel (a) shows a side view, while panel (b) depicts a top view for different lid apertures. The left-hand side cover allows the imaging of the central region of the sample, while the right-hand cover allows for the observation of the edge region.

FIG. 4 .

 4 FIG. 4. (Color online) (a) MOI of the flux distribution in the square YBa2Cu3O 7-δ film at Ha = 350 Oe and T = 50 K. (b) Profiles of the magnetic induction B along the horizontal line in (a), for successive applied fields between 0 and 250 Oe. (c) MOI of the flux distribution in the film at T = 70 K and Ha = 150 Oe, applied after zero field cooling to 30 K and successive warming. (d) B-profiles taken along the horizontal line in (c), for different temperatures during warming to 70 K.

FIG. 5 .

 5 FIG. 5. (a) Surface resistance at 7 GHz as function of the input microwave power at 60 K, for zero applied field, and Ha = 130 Oe. (b) Resonant frequency as a function of the input microwave power at 60 K.

FIG. 6 .

 6 FIG. 6. (Color online) (a) Schematic representation of the position of the obtained image relatively to the sample edge. The open green contour denotes the outline of the SC film. (b) MO image obtained after the sample was zero field cooled to 60 K, and a microwave field with input power of 22 dBm was applied.

FIG. 7 .

 7 FIG. 7. (Color online) (a) Schematic representation of the position of the obtained image relative to the YBa2Cu3O 7-δ thin film outline (open green contour). (b) MO image obtained after the sample was zero-field cooled to 60 K, and a dc field of 130 Oe applied.

FIG. 8 .

 8 FIG. 8. (a) Increase of the resonance frequency of the TiO2 resonator as function of temperature, measured in the absence of the superconducting film. (b) Temperature increase of the superconducting film during the swept-power experiments of Fig. 5, as deduced from (a).

FIG. 9 .

 9 FIG. 9. (Color online) MOI, showing the progression of the flux front as the microwave field power is increased. The images correspond to the microwave powers denoted by the arrows in Fig. 5(a): 1. No microwave field; 2. 10 dBm; 3. 14 dBm; 4. 17 dBm; 5. 20 dBm; 6. 24 dBm.

FIG. 10 .

 10 FIG. 10. (Color online) Identical flux magnetic flux penetration into the YBa2Cu3O 7-δ thin film exposed to a dc field of 130 Oe (a) at the sample holder temperature T = 60 K, with applied microwave power P rf = 17 dBm; (b) at the higher temperature of the sample holder T = 62.586 K, chosen such that ∆f = 33.245 MHz as in (a), but with P rf = 10 dBm.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was partially funded by the French National Research Agency ANR, under contract number ANR-07-BLAN-0242 SURF.