Decision-making Bodies.

Decisions about language standardization may be made by a body, or perhaps even by an individual (Panini, Tolkaappiyanaar, Martin Luther, Ben Yehuda); if it is a body, it may have as its immediate task, not the codification of the language, but the officialization or standardization of some text, e.g. the English Bible of 1611. Perhaps the work of one or more writers becomes the model for what is acceptable and what is not (Shakespeare, Goethe, Cervantes, Pushkin, Tagore). Large bodies, however, have more trouble coming to a decision than would small bodies or an individual; the decision-making process is simply too complex for any large group to be able to do effectively. Therefore the Academy model, though perhaps politically necessary, is in actual practice very ineffective; it must delegate decision-making to subcommittees, and once the body is established, becomes a force for conservativism, blocking even then most trivial reforms. Purism or some other cultural agenda may hold sway, with passionate denunciations of the most innocent suggestions or proposals . Sometimes academies, though given the ultimate authority, keep their finger on the pulse of the linguistic community, and ask for suggestions and/or non-binding approval of any changes they may suggest, from their users. On the other hand, hyper-democracy in the language standardization process is usually counter-productive, and may lead to the troubles experienced by Norway, where floor-fights in the national legislature over trivia such as the gender of nouns were once common.