This paper develops a Weberian ideal‑type model explaining how linguistic norms diffuse through institutional environments via administrative incentives rather than decentralized cultural drift or explicit state-led language planning. It identifies a five‑stage sequence—Institutional Access, Resource Mobilization, Norm Diffusion, Coalition Reinforcement, and Norm Enforcement—through which upstream gatekeeping bodies, professional standards committees, and compliance-oriented organizations convert optional vocabulary into de facto mandatory administrative norms. The model distinguishes coordinated campaigns from emergent isomorphic steering, integrates sociolinguistics, institutional sociology, social psychology, political theory, and administrative law, and grounds each stage in directly observable primary-source evidence including organizational style guides, discourse‑analytic studies, automated language‑governance frameworks, and cross-domain case material from environmental governance, public health, and corporate HR. It specifies explicit boundary conditions and four failure modes—public ridicule, institutional pluralism, preference‑falsification collapse, and statutory friction—and provides empirical operationalization protocols using corpus linguistics, administrative documentation, and tribunal data. Rather than describing any single historical episode, the paper offers a falsifiable analytical framework for investigating how linguistic norms emerge, stabilize, or reverse within formal institutional systems. The next version will include datasets from the Islamic state of Iran and various other groups.