Intensification can be expressed cross-linguistically by several morphological and syntactic constructions (Rainer 2015). The diversity of constructions available to express a single function implies a form-function asymmetry, alongside marked language-specific preferences for particular types of intensification complicate the acquisition of intensifying constructions for second language learners. Our study is situated within the theoretical framework of usage-based Construction Grammar (cf. Tomasello 2003; Goldberg 2010 among others). Second language acquisition is presumed to be more complex than L1 acquisition because of the competition between L1 and L2 constructions (Ellis & Cadierno 2009). We focus here on one specific case of such constructional competition, namely the expression of intensification in the interlanguage of French-speaking learners of Dutch. Previous studies found idiosyncratic preferences for morphological vs. syntactic constructions in Germanic and Romance languages, respectively (Van der Wouden & Foolen forth.; Van Haeringen 1956; Lamiroy 2011). Accordingly, we hypothesize that French-speaking learners of Dutch will (i) underuse typical Germanic morphological means of intensification such as elative compounds [<N> [ADJ]]ADJ (e.g. ijskoud/ ice-cold) (Hoeksema 2012), and (ii) overuse syntactic constructions frequently used in French, like adverbial modification [[ADV] [ADJ]]AP (e.g. tout petit ‘very small’) and adjectival reduplication [[ADJ] [ADJ]]AP (e.g. petit petit ‘very small’) (Riegel, Pellat & Rioul 1994: 620, 622). More specifically, we will address 3 research questions: (i) To what extent can we observe variation in the use of intensifying constructions between the native and learner language? (ii) Which (formal and semantic) constraints can be identified in the preferences for specific intensifying constructions? (iii) Does more input provided through a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach lead to a more native-like acquisition of ...