It is obvious that evidentiality is a specific linguistic category, with the help of which the speaker defines his role as a direct participant or as a transmitter of another’s words in the description of the event [Makartsev 2014; 28]. 

          Evidentiality is an assertion by any person who states the factual information, regardless of the evidence. It may express the kinds of evidence a person has for making factual claims [Anderson 1986; 273].

          Included are the linguistic forms that mark the speaker’s or writer’s basis of knowledge as something seen, heard, inferred, or told [Du Bois 1986; 93].

          The concept of evidentiality has a cognitive form based on the knowledge which is related to the space of epistemological (that can be distinguished between belief or guesswork, cognitive theory that organizes validity or possibility) by instilling confidence to the listener of the information conveyed by the speaker [Bednarek 2006; 635].

          It should be mentioned that different languages offer to study evidentials in different groups:

1. Information inferred by direct physical evidence;

2. Information inferred/assumed because of speaker's experience with similar situations;

3. Past deferred realization.

All in all, evidentiality is used to be appeared in most languages in the form of perceptual verbs such as see, hear, smell, taste and feel. In the following, there is a clear example to evidentiality:

I saw coffee still tasted sour - VISUAL

I heard coffee still tasted sour (I was told) - HEARSAY

I felt coffee still tasted sour (I tasted it by myself) - WITNESS

Coffee apparently tasted sour (Because, her face was discontented) -INFERENTIAL

Evidentiality is a linguistic category whereas the primary meaning is a source of information. This covers the way in which information was acquired, without necessarily relating to the degree of speaker’s certainty concerning the statement of whether it is true or not… To be considered as an evidential, a morpheme has to have ‘source of information’ as its core meaning; that is, the unmarked, or default interpretation. A.Aikhenvald proposed to study the evidential analysis in the following groups:

- Witness vs. Nonwitness;

- Firsthand vs. secondhand vs. Thirdhand;

- Visual vs. nonvisual (i.e. auditory, olfactory, etc.)

- Inferential

- Hearsay

- Quotative  [Aikhenvald 2004; 3].   

Witness evidentiality is a type of evidentiality which indicates the information used what the speaker heard or felt by himself/herself whereas non-witness evidentiality is used to highlight the information heard from the others, that is without actually seeing or hearing it with one’s own eyes.

Secondhand evidentiality is used to denote any information that the speaker has not personally observed or experienced. This kind of evidentiality may contradict other kinds of evidentiality as it includes the reported information. In many agglutinative languages the opinions given by secondhand and thirdhand have been observed rather distinctive from the first source of information.

Visual evidentiality is a type of evidentiality which indicates the source of information obtained as a result of a direct observation of the speaker. This is usually done visually with the help of vision and eyes.

Inferential evidentiality indicates the information which is not personally experienced, but derived from a circumstantial evidence. In this case, the speaker expresses his opinion through a certain object, it does not matter whether the information is true or false because the evidence has not found its exact proof, it is just being guessed.

Hearsay evidentiality, in this type of evidentiality one can get information by hearing from the others, expresses the information he/she heard from others about the second person, like a rumor or a gossip.

Quotative evidentiality is used to highlight the information given by the secondhand the same, without any changes like a reported speech. 

G. Diewald states that evidentiality can be analyzed through the following categories:

1. Through subsystems and evidential paradigms (semantic differences and pragmatic functions) in different languages;

2. Through the connection of evidential units with other grammatical categories (in mood, tense and aspect);

3. Through limitations of evidentiality in subordinate clauses in solving syntactic and pragmatic issues;

4. Through levels of grammaticalization and diachronic increase of evidentiality;

5. By classifying perceptual verbs from lexical sources into evidential markers;

6. Through the repetition, distribution and specific functions of evidential markers in different contexts [Diewald 2010; 3].  

During the research, one can conclude that evidentiality does not exist only in English language, but also in the Uzbek language too. In the following, there is a comparison between abovementioned types of evidentiality in two languages in the sample of fiction: