This paper reviews the so-called Lexical Integrity Principle, resting on the assumption that morphology and syntax are distinct components of grammar. In the forty-odd years since its original formulation, this principle has repeatedly come under fire. Phrasal compounds ([[ Lexical Integrity ] NP Principle ] N being an example!) are often adduced as counterevidence, but I here argue that phrases generally don’t appear inside compounds and that the principle therefore cannot be so easily discarded. The claim that parts of words cannot be syntactically manipulated has remained relatively unchallenged, which is another reason to uphold some aspects of Lexical Integrity. The separability of particle verbs, though, presents a well-known potential problem. I address recent voices that particle verbs, despite neuroscientific evidence of their lexical status, are not words, maintaining they can be items with word status, given for example their occurrence in the [V the N taboo-word out of NP] construction. A constructionist approach to alternation phenomena offers a solution to the separability issue, which consists in having schematic particle verb constructions whose grammatical status (and not just word order) is underspecified. As words, particle verbs stay together; as phrases, their parts can separate. To salvage the Lexical (or, better, Morphological) Integrity of words, this paper proposes a principle –a construction of sorts – that is a generalization emerging from how we use words.