Languages vary significantly in their preferences for morphological and syntactic constructions (among others, Van Goethem 2009; Schlücker 2019). The present study focuses on adjectival intensification: [[X]INT [Y]ADJ]ADJ/AP ↔ ‘very Y’ (e.g. very proud). The diversity of constructions (such as degree adverbs, intensifying prefixes, compounds, etc.) and the language-specific preferences for particular types of intensification (Hoeksema 2011, 2012; Rainer 2015) may complicate the acquisition of intensifying constructions for second language learners (Lorenz 1999). Specifically intensifying adjectival compounds (henceforth IAC) (e.g. ice-cold) are expected to be difficult to acquire. While these constructions are a productive means to express intensification in Dutch and in English, in French this construction is hardly productive. In consequence, French-speaking learners may encounter difficulties acquiring IAC in L2 Dutch/English. This study is situated within the theoretical framework of usage-based Construction Grammar (cf. Tomasello 2003; Ellis & Cadierno 2009 among others). More specifically, the results are interpreted taking the approach of Diasystematic Construction Grammar (DCxG) (Höder 2012, 2014) which conceptualizes the linguistic competence of multilingual speakers as an ‘interlingual network of constructions with different degrees of schematicity’ (Höder 2012: 255). Analyzing the interlanguage of French-speaking learners of Dutch and English through the lens of DCxG allows one to identify the diasystematic links between intensifying constructions in French (L1) and the target languages of these learners. In this contribution I will address the following research question: Does more target language exposure provided through Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) lead to a deeper entrenchment of (more) diasystematic constructions and target language idioconstructions? Within the context of a research project on CLIL in French-speaking Belgium (cf. Authors 2017), I assess the impact of CLIL ...