<p>This study investigates variation among three English permissive constructions (let + V, allow + to V, permit + to V) in native and Chinese EFL writing, using corpora of short argumentative essays and extended academic prose. We apply conditional inference trees and random forests to assess how nine semantic, syntactic, and stylistic predictors influence construction choice, revealing both shared tendencies and group-specific patterns. Results show that text type, causer animacy, and the semantics of the resulting‑event predicate are the strongest predictors of construction choice for both groups. While “let” functions as the default permissive across contexts, “allow” is strongly associated with inanimate causers and tends to appear in more formal registers; “permit”, however, remains rare overall. Significant differences are observed at multiple levels of the conditioning factors. For native speakers, causer animacy is a robust predictor across registers; for Chinese learners, its effect is confined to extended academic prose, with negation conditioning choices in short argumentative essays. Additionally, in extended academic prose with animate causers, Chinese learners’ choice of permissive construction is conditioned by complement semantics, whereas native speakers are sensitive to the linear distance between the permissive verb and its infinitival complement. Furthermore, transitivity of the infinitival predicate significantly modulates native speakers’ choice between “let” and “allow”, whereas no corresponding effect is observed among Chinese EFL learners. Taken together, the findings, aligning with a view of language as choice and chance, advance constructional explanations of the Principle of No Synonymy and statistical preemption.</p>