 Other critics claim that RTM is too closely associated with commonsense psychology, which they argue should be abandoned as a stagnant and degenerate research program (Churchland 1981; see entry  eliminative materialism),  or that developments in computational modeling (esp. connectionism and dynamic systems theory) offer alternatives, particularly to the language of thought version of RTM (e.g., see Clark 1993, Van Gelder 1995, Elman et al. 1996, McClelland et al. 2010; see Fodor &amp; Pylyshyn 1988, Marcus 2001, and Gallistel &amp; King 2009 for critical discussion of theories that don’t employ combinatorial structure.)