A good number of studiesin the past have examined the language of sexism from the feminist perspectives, gender segregation and degradation, etc. using semiotics resources, discourse analysis, multimodal discourse, among other theories. This study looks at sexist language as one of the choices available to language users on the Facebook social media platform by identifying the linguistic and non-linguistic elements used as a communicative vehicle of sexism on the platform. Using the multimodal theory as framework, the study examines 10 Facebook posts with texted pictures and comments. This is precipitated on the discovery that less attention is paid on the signification of the communicative elements deployed to convey sexism on the Facebook platform. From the analysis, the study finds out that Facebook users engage linguistic and non-linguistic elements symbolising sexist language on Facebook postings; that the posts on Facebook rely predominantly on both written texts and pictures, combined to make the tagging or stereotyping concrete;that the sexist posts on Facebook platforms rely heavily on hasty or intentional generalisation in order to demean the sex they chose to target through texts, pictures and the combination of texts or pictures and that there is usually an undertone of humour in most of the sexist posts, which can, in a way, undermine the fact that the posts are created to demean the opposite gender rather than for fun.

extralinguistic features, Facebook, feminism, gender, linguistics features, multimodal analysis, semiotics, sexist language, texted pictures.

1) Awan, B. (2016). Islamaphobia on social media: A qualitative analysis of the Facebook's walls of hate. International Journal of Cyber Criminology,10 (1), 1-20. Briere, J., &Lanktree, C. (1983). Sex-role related effects of sex bias in language. Sex roles, 9, 625-631. Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet, (1sted.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2) Doyle, M. (1998). Introduction to the A-Z of non-sexist language. In D. Cameron (ed.), the feminist critique of language. London and New York: Routledge, 149-154.Gygax, P., Gabriel, U., Sarrasin, O., Oakhill, J., &Garnham, A. (2008). Generically intended, but specifically interpreted: When beauticians, musicians and mechanics are all men. Language and cognitive processes, 23, 464-485. Halliday, M. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore: University of Park Press.

3) Hamilton, M. C. (1988). Using masculine generics: Does generic he increase male bias in the user’s imagery? Sex Roles, 19, 785-799. Hegarty, P., Watson, N., Fletcher, L., & McQueen, G. (2011). When gentleman are first and ladies are last: Effects of gender stereotypes on the order or romantic partners’ names. British journal of social psychology, 50, 21-35. Hyde, J. S. (1984). Children’s understanding of sexist language. Developmental psychology, 20, 697-706.

4) Jewitt, C. and Oyama, R. (2001). “Visual Meaning: A Social Semiotic Approach” in Theo van Leeuwen&Jewitt Carey (eds.) Handbook of Visual Analysis. London: Sage Publication.

5) Jolayemi, D. & Mahmud, M.O. (2017). Road signs as linguistic landscape in Nigeria: A semiotic communication. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research. Vol.5, No 5, pp. 1-14, October 2017.

6) Kitto, J. (2011). Gender reference terms: Separating the women from the girls. British journal of social psychology, 28, 185-187.

7) Kleinman, S. (2002). Why sexist language matters. Qualitative sociology, 25, 299-304.

8) Kress, Gunther and van Leeuwen, Theo (2001). Multimodal discourse: the modes and media of contemporary communications. London: Arnold.

9) Lim F. V. (2011). A systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis approach to pedagogic discourse.A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, department of English language and Literature, National University of Singapore.https://mafiadoc.com/a-systemic-functional-multimodal-discourse-multimodalliteracy_ 597eff2a1723dd68e375d9e3.html. Retrieved March 25, 2018. 2,34am

10) Mahmud, M.O. (2017). Visuals as effective extralinguistic feature of language of television advertisement. Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics. Volume 37, 2017. Pg. 45- 53.

11) Merkel, E., Maass, A., &Frommelt, L. (2010). Shielding women against status loss. The masculine form and its alternatives in the Italian language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31, 311-320.

12) Moulton, J.,Robinson, G. M., &Elias, C.(1978). Sex bias in language use: "Neutral" pronouns that aren't. American Psychologist, 33(11), 1032-1036.

13) Nordquist, R. (2018). Sexist Language. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/sexist-language-1692093 on the 25th of January, 2019. Parks, J. B., &Roberton, M. A. (2004). Attitudes toward women mediate the gender effect on attitudes toward sexist language. Psychology of women quarterly, 28, 233-239.

14) Pérez-Sabater, C. (2014). Breaking gender stereotypes in technology education: Developing strategies in the English classroom. In English for Specific Purposes World, 38, 14, available from http://www.espworld.info/Articles_38/Abstracts/PerezSabater_Breaking_gender_stereotypes.htm, accessed 16 March, 2014.

15) Rambe, P. (2012). Critical discourse analysis of collaborative engagement in Facebook postings. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(2), 295-314. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/rambe.html.

16) Stahlberg, D., Braun, F., Irmen, L., Sczesny, S. (2007). Representation of the sexes in language. In Fiedler, K. (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 163-187).

17) Stivers and Sidnell (2005). Introduction: multimodal interaction.https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/de-gruyter/introductionmultimodal- interaction-kUp0l8uPdm. Retrieved, march 25, 3.09am.Stout, J. G., &Dasgupta, N. (2011). When he doesn’t mea n you: Gender-exclusive language as ostracism. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 36, 757-769.

18) Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Moving English: the visual language of film. In Goodman, S. and Graddol, T. (eds.) Redesigning English: new texts, new identities. London and New York: Routledge.

19) Van Leeuwen, T. (1999). Speech, Music, Sound. London: Macmillan, 1999. Print.

VOlUME 03 ISSUE 05 MAY 2020