Intensification can be expressed cross-linguistically by several morphological and syntactic constructions (among others, Kirschbaum 2002; Hoeksema 2011, 2012; Zeschel 2012; 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 complex because of the competition between L1 and L2 constructions (Ellis & Cadierno 2009). This study focuses on one specific case of such constructional competition, namely the expression of adjectival 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 Haeringen 1956; Lamiroy 2011) and assume that this also holds for intensification (Van der Wouden & Foolen forth.). 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 constructions such as [[ADJ] as [NP]]AP (e.g. fort comme un Turc ‘very strong’) (Riegel, Pellat & Rioul 1994: 620, 622). More specifically, we will address 3 research questions: (i) To what extent can we observe constructional transfer in L2 Dutch? (e.g. underuse of morphological constructions and overuse of syntactic intensifying constructions?) (ii) Which (formal and semantic) constraints can be identified in the preferences for specific intensifying ...