Many theories and approaches have been published regarding children's use of functional elements that appear to be used optionally when they are first acquired. Functional items are considered words that have little lexical meaning although they serve to express grammatical relationships between other words within a sentence. Children seem to have difficulty presenting these functional elements and concentrating on words with lexically significant content. Content words denote some entity, activity, property, or relationship and are therefore lexically significant. An article edited by Judith Goodman and Howard.C.Nusbaum examines the opinions of various authors on this phenomenon. One approach examines how children repeatedly fail to produce functional morphemes during their early utterances. This information has been used as a primary indication to believe that children's initial representation of language is based on referential content words, meaning that when children hear utterances they instantly look for familiar content words that have been learned in isolation, and therefore they treat the functional morphemes as unfamiliar noise, ignoring them completely. Goodman and Nusbaum reviewed evidence showing that children actually consider morphemes to be functional when listening to utterances, although they are still unable to produce them coherently when speaking. Functional morphemes belong to the category of functional elements, which includes determiners, pronouns, quantifiers, negation markers, complementizers, and inflection. Functional morphemes belong to the inflection category and include conjunctions, clauses, articles, and pronouns. A predominantly innovative account of the production of finiteness indicators is the optional infinite hypothesis. (Wexler, 1994). In the OI phase, during which children lack a particular awareness of the fact that the verb tense is obligatory in finite sentences, this particular awareness matures in a later phase of development. Wexler ultimately believed that time was optional and therefore indicated that children electively produce finite and non-finite forms in matrix propositions. To demonstrate this clearly he used examples to support his statement. Wexler did not use English in these examples since English does not show a clear alteration between the infinitive form and the uninflected form of the present tense and therefore does not show a clear case of non-finite expressions in child English. Wexler consequently demonstrated the optional infinitive stage with data from several different languages ​​in which the form of the infinitive was morphologically distinct from the form used in most present-time models. The data he provides supports his belief that there is a developmental stage indicating that children use both finite and infinite forms in matrix propositions in various languages..