The paper questions the possibility of keeping the legal conception of signature as a constant and repeatable style of handwriting. By comparing double Derrida’s and Deleuze’s ontological semiotics, the author observes that while both thinkers agree that no writer is able to reach identity by repeating his/her traces, they disagree on the reason of this claim. In Derrida, signature is just an aporetical request of the law: in order to confirm our civil identity, we are obliged to repeat manually a trace that can’t be repeated manually. In Deleuze, repetition doesn’t produce identity, but difference: in every signing, the writer is becoming a signature. His/her handwriting is every time shaped by a singular affect, which alternates his/her previous traces. Contrary to Derrida, Deleuze admits a consistence of the author’s style, which is a sign of his continuous affective becoming, becoming-a-name, becoming-a-line.