Abstract
Conceptual metaphor theory showed, from embodiment, the importance of metaphor as a cognitive process. This influential theory assumes the existence of primitive but powerful mental structures called image schemas. In this paper, we conduct a critical inquiry about these structures from the developmental perspective of the pragmatics of the object and show they have serious problems. Taking the CONTAINER image schema as a case, we discuss the plausibility of image schemas in early childhood. We suggest that children do not interact with objects as if a basic and generic CONTAINER cognitive structure preexisted. Instead, in everyday life, they use “container” objects to fulfill very different functions. As object function is construed by children's participation in triadic child-adult-object experiences through semiotic mediation, we propose image schemas are not natural or direct, do not exist in early childhood, and are a developmental, pragmatic, and cultural product. As empirical illustration, we analyze a child-mother-objects interaction at home.
References
1.
Aguiar, A., & Baillargeon, R. (1998). Eight-and-a-half-month-old infants' reasoning about containment events. Child Development, 69, 636-653. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06234.x
2.
Alessandroni, N. (2015). Varieties of embodiment: From the lived body to the dynamic systems theory. Unpublished manuscript, Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, Argentina.
3.
Alessandroni, N. (2016). Development of metaphorical thought before language. The pragmatic construction of metaphors in action. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, Epub ahead of print. doi:10.1007/s12124-016-9373-3
4.
Baillargeon, R. (1987). Object permanence in 3½- and 4½-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 23, 655-664. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.23.5.655
5.
Basilio, M. (2014). Los signos preverbales como herramientas de pensamiento: El origen social de la autorregulación cognitiva en niños de 14 a 18 meses de edad (doctoral dissertation). https://repositorio.uam.es.
6.
Basilio, M., & Rodríguez, C. (2011). Usos, gestos y vocalizaciones privadas. De la interacción social a la autorregulación. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 34, 181-194. doi:10.1174/021037011795377593
7.
Basilio, M., & Rodríguez, C. (2016). How toddlers think with their hands: Social and private gestures as evidence of cognitive self-regulation in guided play with objects. Early Child Development and Care. doi:10.1080/03004430.2016.1202944
8.
Booth, K. (2016). The meaning of the social body: Bringing George Herbert Mead to Mark Johnson's theory of embodied mind. William James Studies, 12, 1-18.
9.
Boroditsky, L., & Ramscar, M. (2002). The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science, 13, 185-189. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00434
10.
Bruner, J. (1975). From communication to language - A psychological perspective. Cognition, 3, 255-287. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(74)90012-2
11.
Cárdenas, K., Rodríguez, C., & Palacios, P. (2014). First symbols in a girl with Down syndrome: A longitudinal study from 12 to 18 months. Infant Behavior and Development, 37, 416-427. doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2014.06.003
12.
Caron, A., Caron, R., & Antell, S. (1988). Infant understanding of containment: An affordance perceived or a relationship conceived? Developmental Psychology, 24, 620-627. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.24.5.620
13.
Casasola, M., Cohen, L., & Chiarello, E. (2003). Six-month-old infants' categorization of containment spatial relation. Child Development, 74, 679-693. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00562
14.
Castorina, J.A. (2002). El impacto de la filosofía de la escisión en la psicología del desarrollo cognoscitivo. Psykhe, 11(1), 15-27.
15.
Cienki, A. (2013). Image schemas and mimetic schemas in cognitive linguistics and gesture studies. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 417-432. doi:10.1075/rcl.11.2.13cie
16.
Costall, A., & Dreier, O. (Eds.) (2006/2016). Doing things with things. The design and use of everyday objects. New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
Dejonckheere, P.J.N., Smitsman, A.W., & Verhofstadt-Denève, L. (2005). Infants attend to what happens at the rim when they perceive containment. Infant Behavior and Development, 28, 389-406. doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2005.03.006
18.
Dewell, R. (2005). Dynamic patterns of CONTAINMENT. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 369-394). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
19.
Domènech, A., & Amorós, E. (2012). El juego heurístico con los pequeños de 20 meses. Aula de Infantil, 64, 16-17.
20.
Dupertuis, V., & Moro, C. (2016). Self-directed ostensions and mediations of the adult at the age of 8, 12 and 16 months. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50, 621-633. doi:10.1007/s12124-016-9350-x
21.
Engeström, E., & Sannino, A. (2012). Concept formation in the wild. Mind, Culture and Activity, 19, 201-206. doi:10.1080/10749039.2012.690813
22.
Frost, N. (2011). Qualitative research methods in psychology. Combining Core Approaches. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill. doi:10.1037/e586602011-001
23.
Furlong, E.E., Boose, K.J., & Boysen, S.T. (2008). Raking it in: The impact of enculturation on chimpanzee tool use. Animal Cognition, 11, 83-97. doi:10.1007/s10071-007-0091-6
24.
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain's concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 455-479. doi:10.1080/02643290442000310
25.
Gibbs, R.W., & Colston, H.L. (1995). The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformation. Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 347-378. doi:10.1515/cogl.1995.6.4.347
26.
Gibson, J.J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
27.
Gibson, J.J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
28.
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
29.
Goldschmied, E., & Jackson, S. (1997/2000). La educación infantil de 0 a 3 años. Madrid: Ediciones Morata.
30.
Gómez, J.C., Kersken, V., Ball, D., & Seed, A. (2017). Knowing without knowing: Implicit cognition and the minds of infants and animals. Estudios de Psicología, 38, 37-62. doi:10.1080/02109395.2016.1268389
31.
Hespos, S., & Baillargeon, R. (2001a). Knowledge about containment events in very young children. Cognition, 78, 207-245. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00118-9
32.
Hespos, S., & Baillargeon, R. (2001b). Infant's knowledge about occlusion and containment events: A surprising discrepancy. Psychological Science, 12, 141-147. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00324
33.
Hespos, S., & Baillargeon, R. (2006). Décalage in infants' knowledge about occlusion and containment events: Converging evidence from action tasks. Cognition, 99, B31-B41. doi:10.1016/j.cognition. 2005.01.010
34.
Hespos, S., & Spelke, E. (2007). Precursors to spatial language: The case of containment. In M. Aurnague, M. Hickmann, & L. Vieu (Eds.), The categorization of spatial entities in language and cognition (pp. 233-246). Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:10.1075/hcp.20.13hes
35.
Hespos, S., & vanMarle, K. (2012). Physics for infants: Characterizing the origins of knowledge about objects, substances, and number. WIREs Cognitive Science, 3, 19-27. doi:10.1002/wcs.157
36.
Ishiguro, H. (2016). How a young child learns how to take part in mealtimes in a Japanese day-care center: A longitudinal case study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31, 13-27. doi:10.1007/s10212-014-0222-9
37.
Iturgaiz, P. (2012). La heurística con niños y niñas de dos y tres años. Aula de Infantil, 64, 18-21.
38.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39.
Johnson, M. (1989). Image-schematic basis of meaning. RSSI: Recherches Sémiotiques-Semiotic Inquiry, 9, 109-118. http://hdl.handle.net/1794/1981.
40.
Johnson, M. (2007). The meaning of the body. Aesthetics of human understanding. London: University of Chicago Press.
41.
Johnson, M. (2008). The meaning of the body. In W.F. Overton, U. Mueller, & J.L. Newman (Eds.), The Jean Piaget Symposium Series: Developmental Perspectives on Embodiment and Consciousness (pp. 19-44). New York, NY: Erlbaum Associates. doi:10.1016/s0262-4079(08)60114-1
42.
Johnson, M., & Lakoff, G. (1992). Experientialist philosophy. Philosophy in the age of cognitive science. https://georgelakoff.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/experientialist-philosophy-lakoff-and-johnson-1992.pdf.
43.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44.
Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 39-74. doi:10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39
45.
Lakoff, G. (1994). What is a conceptual system? In W. Overton & M. Palermo (Eds.), The nature and ontogenesis of meaning (pp. 41-90). Hove: Erlbaum Associates.
46.
Lakoff, G. (2008). The neural theory of metaphor. In R.W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 17-39). Cambridge/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
47.
Lakoff, G. (2014). Mapping the brain's metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 958. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958
48.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980a/2003). Metaphors we live by. London: University of Chicago Press.
49.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980b). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4, 195-208. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0402_4
50.
Lakoff G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York, NY: Basic Books.
51.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than a cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
52.
Lausberg, H., & Sloetjes, H. (2009). Coding gestural behavior with the NEUROGES-ELAN system. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 41, 841-849. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.3.591.
53.
Lewis, C., & Carpendale, J.I.M. (2002). Social cognition. In P.K. Smith & C.H. Hart (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of childhood social development (pp. 531-547). Oxford: Blackwell.
54.
Lewis, H.D. (1969). The elusive mind. London/New York, NY: Humanities Press.
55.
Lyn, H., Russell, J.L., & Hopkins, W.D. (2010). The impact of environment on the comprehension of declarative communication in apes. Psychological Science, 21, 360-365. doi:10.1177/0956797610362218
56.
MacLean, D., & Schuler, M. (1989). Conceptual development in infancy: The understanding of containment. Child Development, 60, 1126-1137. doi:10.2307/1130787
57.
Madariaga, A. (2012). El cesto de los tesoros desde mi experiencia. Aula de Infantil, 64, 12-15.
58.
Majem, T. (2001). El cesto de los tesoros. In T. Majem & P. Òdena (Eds.), Descubrir jugando (pp. 11-39). Barcelona: Ediciones Octaedro/Associació de Mestres Rosa Sensat.
59.
Mandler, J. (1988). How to build a baby: On the development of an accessible representational system. Cognitive Development, 3, 113-136. doi:10.1016/0885-2014(88)90015-9
60.
Mandler, J. (1992). How to build a baby. II. Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 99, 587-604.
61.
Mandler, J. (2005). How to build a baby. III. Image schemas and the transition to verbal thought. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning. Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 137-165). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
62.
Mandler, J., & Pagán Cánovas, C. (2014). On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition, 6, 510-532. doi:10.1017/langcog.2014.14
63.
Martí, E. (2017). Body, culture and cognition: avoiding reductionist temptations. Estudios de Psicología. doi:10.1080/02109395.2016.1268392
64.
Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (2008). Orden ECI/3960/2007. Currículo y ordenación de la Educación Infantil. Gobierno de España. http://www.boe.es.
65.
Minervino, R. (2007). La capacidad de la Teoría de Proyección de la Estructura y la Teoría de la Metáfora Conceptual para explicar la generación y el uso de metáforas conceptuales: Una comparación crítica. Subjetividad y Procesos Cognitivos, 10, 139-162.
66.
Moreno-Núñez, A. (2014). Ostensive gestures in triadic interactions. From rhythmic ostensive gestures of the adult to children's gestures at the end of the first year of life (doctoral dissertation). https://repositorio.uam.es.
67.
Moreno-Núñez, A., Rodríguez, C., & Del Olmo, M.J. (2015). The rhythmic, sonorous and melodic components of adult-child-object interactions between 2 and 6 months old. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49, 737-756. doi:10.1007/s12124-015-9298-2
68.
Moreno-Núñez, A., Rodríguez, C., & Miranda-Zapata, E. (submitted). Getting away from the point: The emergence and functions of ostensive gestures.
69.
Moro, C. (2016). To encounter, to build the world and to become a human being. Advocating for a material-cultural turn in developmental psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50, 586-602. doi:10.1007/s12124-016-9356-4
70.
Moro, C., Dupertuis, V., Fardel, S., & Piguet, O. (2015). Investigating the development of consciousness through ostensions toward oneself from the onset of the use-of-object to first words. Cognitive Development, 36, 150-160. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2015.09.002
71.
Moro, C., & Rodríguez, C. (2005). L'objet et la construction de son usage chez le bébé. Une approche sémiotique du développement préverbal. Bern/New York, NY: Lang.
72.
Moro, C., & Rodríguez, C. (2008). Production of signs and meaning-making processes in triadic interaction at prelinguistic level. The case of ostensions. In R. Diriwächter & E. Abbey (Eds.), Innovating genesis: Microgenesis and the constructive mind in action (pp. 205-225). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
73.
Òdena, P. (2001). El juego heurístico con objetos. In T. Majem & P. Òdena (Eds.), Descubrir jugando (pp. 41-67). Barcelona: Ediciones Octaedro/Associació de Mestres Rosa Sensat.
74.
Palacios, P., & Rodríguez, C. (2015). The development of symbolic uses of objects in infants in a triadic context: A pragmatic and semiotic perspective. Infant and Child Development, 24, 23-43. doi:10.1002/icd.1873
75.
Palacios, P., Rodríguez, C., Méndez-Sánchez, C., Hermosillo de la Torre, A.E., Sahagún, M.A., & Cárdenas, K. (2016). The development of the first symbolic uses in Mexican children from the pragmatics of object. Estudios de Psicología, 37, 59-89. doi:10.1080/02109395.2015.1122437
76.
Piaget, J. (1936/1981). El nacimiento de la inteligencia en el niño. Buenos Aires: Ábaco.
77.
Povinelli, D.J. (2000). Folk physics for apes: The chimpanzee's theory of how the world works. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
78.
Rigney, J., & Wang, S. (2015). Delineating the boundaries of infants' spatial categories: The case of containment. Journal of Cognition and Development, 16, 420-441. doi:10.1080/15248372.2013.848868
79.
Rivière, A. (1987). El sujeto de la Psicología Cognitiva. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
80.
Rodríguez, C. (2006). Del ritmo al símbolo. Los signos en el nacimiento de la inteligencia. Barcelona: I.C.E. Universitat de Barcelona/Horsori Editorial.
81.
Rodríguez, C. (2007). Object, communication and signs. The triadic basis of early cognitive development. In J. Valsiner & A. Rosa Rivero (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of socio-cultural psychology (pp. 257-276). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511611162.015
82.
Rodríguez, C. (2009). The “circumstances” of gestures: Proto-interrogatives and private gestures. New Ideas in Psychology, 27, 288-303. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2008.04.002
83.
Rodríguez, C. (2012a). The functional permanence of the object: A product of consensus. In E. Martí & C. Rodríguez (Eds.), After Piaget (pp. 123-150). New Brunswick/London: Transaction Publishers.
84.
Rodríguez, C. (2012b). El adulto como guía: ¿El eslabón perdido del desarrollo temprano? Padres y Maestros, 344, 23-26.
85.
Rodríguez, C. (2015). The connection between language and the world: A paradox of the linguistic turn? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49, 89-103. doi:10.1007/s12124-014-9274-2
86.
Rodríguez, C., Basilio, M., Cárdenas, K., Cavalcante, S., Moreno-Núñez, A., Palacios, P., & Yuste, N. (in press). Object pragmatics: Culture and communication, the bases for early cognitive development. In A. Rosa & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of socio-cultural psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
87.
Rodríguez, C., Benassi, J., Estrada, L., & Alessandroni, N. (2017). Early social interactions with people and objects. In A. Slater & G. Bremner (Eds.), An introduction to developmental psychology (3rd ed., pp. 213-258). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
88.
Rodríguez, C., Estrada, L., Moreno-Llanos, I., & de los Reyes, J.L. (2017). Executive functions and educational actions in an infant school: private uses and gestures at the end of the first year. Estudios de Psicología. doi:10.1080/02109395.2017.1305061
89.
Rodríguez, C., Moreno-Núñez, A., Basilio, M., & Sosa, N. (2015). Ostensive gestures come first. Their role in the beginning of the shared reference. Cognitive Development, 36, 142-149. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2015.09.005
90.
Rodríguez, C., & Moro, C. (1998). El uso convencional también hace permanentes a los objetos. Infancia y aprendizaje, 21, 67-83. doi:10.1174/021037098760378793
91.
Rodríguez, C., & Moro, C. (1999). El mágico número tres. Cuando los niños aún no hablan. Barcelona/Buenos Aires: Paidós.
92.
Rodríguez, C., & Moro, C. (2002). Objeto, comunicación y símbolo. Una mirada a los primeros usos simbólicos de los objetos. Estudios de Psicología, 23, 323-338. doi:10.1174/021093902762224416
93.
Rodríguez, C., & Moro, C. (2008). Coming to agreement: Object use by infants and adults. In J. Zlatev, T.P. Racine, C. Sinha, & E. Itkonen (Eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity (pp. 89-114). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. doi:10.1075/celcr.12.07rod
94.
Rodríguez, C., & Palacios, P. (2007). Do private gestures have a self-regulatory function? A case study. Infant Behavior and Development, 30, 180-194. doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2007.02.010
95.
Rodríguez, C., Palacios, P., Cárdenas, K., & Yuste, N. (2014). Les symboles: Des formes de second ou de troisième sens? In C. Moro & N. Müller-Mirza (Eds.), Sémiotique, culture et développement psychologique (pp. 99-116). Villeneuve d'Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.
96.
Ryle, G. (1949/2005). El concepto de lo mental (E. Rabossi, transl.). Barcelona: Paidós Ibérica.
97.
Shaughnessy, J.J., Zechmeister, E.B., & Zechmeister, J.S. (2003/2012). Research methods in psychology (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
98.
Slater, A. (1998). The competent infant: Innate organisation and early learning in infant visual perception. In A. Slater (Ed.), Perceptual development. Visual, auditory, and speech perception in infancy (pp. 105-130). London: Psychology Press.
99.
Spelke, E. (1990). Principles of object perception. Cognitive Science, 14, 29-56. doi:10.1207/s15516709 cog1401_3
100.
Spelke, E. (2000). Core knowledge. American Psychologist, 55, 1233-1243. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55. 11.1233
101.
Spelke, E., Breinlinger, K., Macomber, J., & Jacobson, K. (1992). Origins of knowledge. Psychological Review, 99, 605-632. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.605
102.
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
103.
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 675-691. doi:10.1017/S0140525X05000129
104.
Trevarthen, C. (1979). Communication and cooperation in early infancy. A description of primary intersubjectivity. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech: The beginning of human communication (pp. 321-347). London: Cambridge University Press.
105.
Trevarthen, C., & Hubley, P. (1978). Secondary intersubjectivity: confidence, confiding and acts of meaning in the first year. In A. Lock (Ed.), Action, gesture and symbol: the emergence of language (pp. 183-229). New York, NY: Academic Press.
106.
Tronick, E. (1989). Emotions and emotional communication in infants. American Psychologist, 44, 112-119. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.2.112
107.
Turner, M. (2011). The embodied mind and the origins of human culture. In A.M. Abrantes & P. Hanenberg (Eds.), Cognition and culture: An interdisciplinary dialogue (pp. 13-27). Frankfurt/Berlin: Lang.
108.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1931/1966). Development of the higher mental functions. In A. Leontiev, A. Luria, & A. Smirnov (Eds.), Psychological research in the USSR, Vol. I (pp. 11-45). Moscow: Progress Publishers.
109.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1933/2004). Teoría de las emociones. Estudio histórico-psicológico. Madrid: Akal.
110.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1934/1987). Pensamiento y lenguaje. Buenos Aires: La Pléyade.
111.
Wang, S. (2011). Priming 4.5-month-old infants to use height information by enhancing retrieval. Developmental Psychology, 47, 26-38. doi:10.1037/a0021060
112.
Winch, P. (1958/2012). Ciencia social y filosofía. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu Editores.
113.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953/2009). Philosophical investigations (G.E.M. Anscombe; P.M.S. Hacker & J. Schulte, transl.). Malden/Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
114.
Wobber, V., Herrmann, E., Hare, B., Wrangham, R., & Tomasello, M. (2014). Differences in the early cognitive development of children and great apes. Developmental Psychobiology, 56, 547-573. doi:10.1002/dev.21125
115.
Zlatev, J., Alenkaer Madsen, E., Lenninger, S., Persson, T., Sayehli, S., Sonesson, G., & van de Weijer, J. (2013). Understanding communicative intentions and semiotic vehicles by children and chimpanzees. Cognitive Development, 28, 312-329. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2013.05.001
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.
