Lan­gu­a­ge plan­ning is a kind of plan­ning that aims to influ­en­ce lan­gu­a­ge or lan­gu­a­ge usage. It rep­re­sents such con­sci­ous efforts of which goal is to influ­en­ce the beha­vi­our of peop­le with lear­ning a lan­gu­a­ge (languages), in con­nec­ti­on with its struc­tu­ral and usage functions. Lan­gu­a­ge plan­ning gene­ral­ly hap­pens for the sake of social, political, or eco­no­mic goals. Lan­gu­a­ge plan­ning is the rea­li­sa­ti­on of lan­gu­a­ge policy.

Lan­gu­a­ge rights and their vio­la­ti­on exist for a long time, but their sci­en­ti­fic exa­mi­na­ti­on is be­ing pro­vi­ded only for a few decades. During the big social arguments, dis­cus­si­ons the lan­gu­a­ge rights many times fall behind, for exam­ple envi­ron­ment pro­tec­ti­on or glo­ba­li­sa­ti­on issu­es are incom­pa­rab­ly mo­re dis­cus­sed than dis­cus­si­ons in con­nec­ti­ons with lan­gu­a­ge variety.
The bilin­gu­al issue has mo­re definitions. The def­i­ni­tions of non-linguists dif­fer from the def­i­ni­tions of linguists. The non-linguists often call only those peop­le bi-lingual who speak two lan­gu­a­ges well the same way (al­most perfectly). The lin­gu­ists know that such peop­le are very rare. Lin­gu­ists define bilin­gu­a­li­ty mo­re widely: bilin­gu­al is such per­son who spe­aks two lan­gu­a­ge on wha­te­ver level. Therefore, even that per­son is bilingual, who writes, reads, and spe­aks Hun­ga­ri­an on mot­her lan­gu­a­ge level, but he/she can under­stand a (written or spoken) writing/speaking in Roma­ni­an lan­gu­a­ge with big difficulties.
The rema­i­ning of a mino­ri­ty lan­gu­a­ge has three preconditions. The first is that the spe­a­kers have to know the language, the sec­ond is that they should have the oppor­tu­ni­ty to use their language, and the third is that the mino­ri­ty wants to use its language.
The UNESCO sup­ports tea­ching in mot­her lan­gu­a­ge (for example: Edu­ca­ti­on in a mul­ti­lin­gu­al world), and also mino­ri­ty lan­gu­a­ge hig­her edu­ca­ti­on /The Euro­pe­an Chap­ter of Regi­o­nal or Mino­ri­ty Lan­gu­a­ges (8. article, e. point) and The Hague Recom­men­da­ti­ons (17. and 18. points)/. The lack of Hun­ga­ri­an nati­o­nal stra­te­gy and lan­gu­a­ge stra­te­gy nat­u­ral­ly led to mis­ta­kes – that could had been eva­ded – in con­nec­ti­on with hig­her edu­ca­ti­on insti­tu­ti­ons with Hun­ga­ri­an tea­ching language.
Although not eve­ry­bo­dy will agree with me that mino­ri­ty Hun­ga­ri­an uni­ver­si­ties and hig­her edu­ca­ti­on bilin­gu­al insti­tu­ti­ons should exist, such insti­tu­ti­ons where tea­ching is pro­vi­ded not only in Hun­ga­ri­an language, but in both tea­ching languages. The two goals, that is tea­ching in the mot­her lan­gu­a­ge and bilin­gu­al tea­ching does not exclu­de on another, if we con­si­der the addi­ti­on and not the exchan­ge model.