This study provides the first evidence that sentence interpretation/inferences that comprehenders draw about situation typicality are moderated by the effects of communication form and sentence polarity. We examined the interpretations of affirmative and negative sentences describing real-world situations of varying typicality. We manipulated whether a sentence is presented as a description with an omniscient narrator (e.g., The house has a bathroom.) vs. as direct speech with the speaker-addressee relationship identified (e.g., “The house has a bathroom,” Emma told her partner.). By comparing sentence interpretation across situations varying in (i) typicality (e.g., house has bathroom/garage/ballroom), (ii) communicative form (description vs. direct speech), and (iii) sentence polarity (affirmative vs. negative), we find that presenting information as direct speech encourages pragmatic inferences beyond world knowledge. We also find that negation per se does not trigger theoretically predicted pragmatic inferences, but with a specific communicative act like direct speech it does.