Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Kartet som hun tegner, hjelper oss å forstå teksten bedre. - The map that she draws helps us understand the text better.

Kartet som hun tegner = The map (that/which) she is drawing.
Som refers back to kartet and introduces the relative clause som hun tegner.

In this sentence, som is the object of the verb tegner (she is drawing what? → the map).
Som is very common and covers most uses of English that, which, who in relative clauses in Norwegian.

Can som be left out here, like in English “The map she is drawing”?

Yes, it can.

Full form: Kartet som hun tegner, hjelper oss …
Shortened: Kartet hun tegner, hjelper oss …

When som is the object of the verb in the relative clause (as here), it is often dropped in everyday Norwegian, especially in speech.
You cannot drop som when it is the subject of the clause (e.g. Kartet som hjelper oss …, not Kartet hjelper oss … with the same meaning).

Why are kartet and teksten in the definite form?

Kartet = the map, teksten = the text.

Norwegian usually uses the definite form when you and the listener both know which specific thing is being talked about:

Kartet som hun tegner = the map that she is drawing (a particular map)
teksten = the text (a particular text you already have in mind, e.g. the one you are reading)

If you said et kart or en tekst, you would be talking about a map / a text in a more general or indefinite way, which would slightly change the meaning.

What tense is tegner, and does it mean “is drawing” or “draws”?

Tegner is the present tense of å tegne (to draw).

Norwegian present tense covers both:

English simple present: she draws
English present continuous: she is drawing

So hun tegner can be translated as either she draws or she is drawing, depending on context. Here, she is drawing is the more natural English version.

Why is there a comma after tegner? Is it necessary?

In very strict modern comma rules, many writers would not put a comma here:

Kartet som hun tegner hjelper oss å forstå teksten bedre.

There is normally no comma between the subject and the verb, even if the subject contains a relative clause.

However, you will sometimes see a comma used after a long or complex subject for readability, especially in less formal writing. So the comma in:

Kartet som hun tegner, hjelper oss …

is more about style and breathing pause than strict grammar. In exams and formal texts, it is safer to omit that comma.

Why does the verb hjelper come right after the subject phrase? Could it go later in the sentence?

Norwegian main clauses follow a V2 rule: the finite verb (here hjelper) normally comes in the second position in the sentence, no matter how long the first element is.

In this sentence, the whole chunk Kartet som hun tegner counts as the first position (the subject), so the verb must come next:

Subject: Kartet som hun tegner
Verb: hjelper
Rest: oss å forstå teksten bedre

You cannot move hjelper further right without changing the sentence type or making it ungrammatical.

What does å do in å forstå, and how is that different from for å forstå?

Å in å forstå is the infinitive marker, like to in to understand.

å forstå = to understand

In this construction, hjelper oss å forstå, the verb hjelpe simply takes å + infinitive:

hjelper oss å forstå = helps us (to) understand

For å forstå means in order to understand, which expresses purpose:

Vi leser teksten for å forstå den. = We read the text in order to understand it.

So here å forstå is correct; for å forstå would change the meaning.

Could I say hjelper oss med å forstå teksten bedre instead? Is there a difference?

Yes, that is also correct:

… hjelper oss å forstå teksten bedre.
… hjelper oss med å forstå teksten bedre.

Both are idiomatic. Med adds a slight sense of “helps us with understanding”, but in most contexts the meaning is practically the same. Without med is a bit more direct and is very common with hjelpe + person + å + infinitive.

Why is it oss and not vi in hjelper oss å forstå?

Oss is the object form (objective case) of vi:

vi = we (subject)
oss = us (object)

In this sentence, oss is the indirect object of hjelper:

(Kartet) hjelper oss = (The map) helps us

So you must use oss, not vi, just like English uses us and not we in this position.

Is bedre an adjective or an adverb here, and why is it placed at the end?

Here bedre (“better”) functions as an adverb modifying the verb phrase å forstå teksten:

å forstå teksten bedre = to understand the text better

Placing bedre at the end of the verb phrase is the most natural order:

forstå teksten bedre (very natural)
forstå bedre teksten (possible but sounds awkward and marked)

With verbs and objects, adverbs like bedre, ofte, ikke usually go after the object in neutral sentences.

Could I rewrite the sentence as Hun tegner et kart som hjelper oss å forstå teksten bedre? Does that change the meaning?

Yes, that is a correct and natural sentence:

Hun tegner et kart som hjelper oss å forstå teksten bedre.

The meaning is very close, but the focus changes slightly:

Original: Kartet som hun tegner, hjelper oss …
→ Focus on the map and what it does.
Rewritten: Hun tegner et kart som hjelper oss …
→ Focus on her action (she is drawing a map) and then describe what that map does.

So it is more a change of emphasis than of basic meaning.

Are there any important pronunciation points in words like kartet, som, and hjelper?

A few key points:

hj in hjelper is pronounced like y in yes; the h is silent: roughly “yel-per”.
å in å forstå is like the vowel in English law (British) or taught.
The r in kartet and forstå is usually a tapped or rolled r in most accents.
Final -et in kartet is often pronounced like -e (schwa) in everyday speech: “kar-te”.

These are general tendencies; exact pronunciation varies by dialect.