The 1980s formulation of the NSP entailed not only a macro-parameter that divided languages into two large groups (those with and those without null subjects), but also the set of connected properties described in the preceding chapters. This formulation made clear predictions about acquisition and learnability in general. On the one hand, a macro-parameter will trigger ‘cascade effects’ that allow for learning multiple properties of a language when the relevant parameter is set. However, as noted in the previous chapters, the cluster of properties ascribed to the NSP does not seem to be a product of a macroparametric setting. While this does not contradict the macro-parametric view in general, it does question whether the NSP exists as a macro-parameter.

On the other hand, the macro-parametric view leads one to expect a certain order of acquisition of the parametric properties depending on which one of them is considered more basic. If inflectional richness is the driving force for the parameter, then one would expect it to be a necessary property for the others to appear. Likewise, if the basic property is inversion, then one should find instances of it before any of the other properties are attested. Finally, if the NSP exists as a macro-parameter, what is its default, unmarked value? Will children start out assuming that languages have null subjects and then potentially reset the value depending on the input?