Suppose $X$ is a normal projective variety over $\mathbb C$. In the case $X$ is smooth according to Hodge theory $h^1(X,O(X))$ is the dimension of the space of holomorphic $1$-forms on $X$ and this number is equal as well to the half of the first Betti number $b\_1(X)/2$ . 


I would like to know what happen in the case when $X$ is singular and normal.


1) Is there some relation (equality or inequality) between $h^1(X,O(X))$ and $b\_1(X)$? For example does $b\_1(X)=0$ imply $h^1(X,O(X))=0$?


2) Suppose that $h^1(X,O(X))=n$ is it true that there is a canonical $n$-dimensional space of $1$-forms on $X$, holomorphic outside of its singularities? (if yes, can something be said about their behaviour at singularities?)


Is there some pedagogical reference treating these questions?



$H^1(X,O_X)$,  holomorphic $1$-forms, and $b_1(X)/2$ for normal $X$.
(Although I have pretty much "retired" from Mathoverflow, I will answer this, since the answer is nice but probably not all that well known.)



> 
> Theorem. If $X$ is complex normal projective variety, then it is still true that $b\_1(X)=2h^1(\mathcal{O}\_X)$.
> 
> 
> 


Proof. Let $\pi:\tilde X\to X$ be a desingularization. Since $X$ is normal, the fibres of $\pi$ are connected. Therefore $\pi\_\*\mathbb{Z}$ (with analytic topology) is connected.
It follows that $H^1(X,\mathbb{Z})\to H^1(\tilde X, \mathbb{Z})$ is injective since it can be identified with the edge map for Leray. Therefore the, a priori mixed, Hodge structure on $H^1(X)$ is pure of type $\lbrace (1,0),(0,1)\rbrace$. Consequently 
$$b\_1(X)=2\dim [H^1(X)]^{(0,1)}=2 \dim im[H^1(X,\mathcal{O}\_X)\to H^1(\tilde X, \mathcal{O}\_{\tilde X}] = 2h^1(\mathcal{O}\_X)$$




---


Regarding your question 2, you can construct an Albanese map $X\to Alb(X)$ to the torus
associated to the dual Hodge structure on $H\_1(X)$. The space of $1$-forms on $Alb(X)$ will pullback to a space of the required dimension on $X$. 




---


To address your comments: a general reference for mixed Hodge structures is the book by
Peters and Steenbrink (although this may be bit a heavy). And yes, the argument does work in the Moishezon case, and a bit more generally. I guess that I may as well admit the above argument was extracted from paper in Duke from 1990; this contains some more details and elaborations as well.


