The Framing Theory constitutes a topic of active research with a relatively long-standing effort, which looks back upon a 60-year history from 1955 when the eminent anthropologist, Bateson， proposed, for the first time, the concept ″FRAME″in his path-breaking study 'A Theory of Play and Fantasy'， to 2015 when the present study was still in its infancy. However, the theory lacked an entry within the indexes of most textbooks till 1974 when Goffman's work on Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience began to gain prominence as a canonical book in relevant studies, which, from social science circles' vantage point of official history in the present, is the generally recognized launch pad for the Framing Theory. The landscape of the Framing Theory has seen a number of significant changes with regards to how″framing' is perceived by communication academics over the past 60 years and a narrowing-down process is said to exist where the definition moved away from the″broad' sense to the″narrow' sense. Broadly, the term ″framing″ comprises a set of concepts ranging from nature phenomena unaffected by human activities, psychological principles and subjective processes underpinning both individual and organizational events, to explanatory strategies favored by social organizations in certain contexts, while the term, if narrowly defined, can also be stated in terms of distinct media-effect frames articulated and emphasized in a strand of communication scholarship. In effect, media-effect framing has a strong presence asa fertile source of new perspectives and substantial contributions in the contemporary culture of framing theory, leading to writings on relevant strategies being well-presented across scholarly publications. On the contrary, few studies have been carried out with the primary aim of exploring non-media effect framing, to the best of our knowledge. To shed light through a theoretical avenue on the mysterious silence regarding Bateson who actually led the way in the development of the Framing Theory, this paper, drawing on both original document analysis and secondary data analysis, attempts to follow the mainstream logic of the Framing Theory and to provide correspondingly an outline of its development. By charting its much-awaited chronology, the paper identifies and labels three stages alongside the general theme including prehistory stage（1955-1973）, sociological redirection stage （1974-）as well as communication studies redirection stage （1990s）, with particularly close attention paid to the silence on ″non-media effect framework,″ ″non-mass media framework″and ″cultural framework″behind the evolution of the Theory. While Bateson's work breaks new ground as his conception of ″framework,″ ″meta-communication″ and ″relational communication″represents a pioneering attempt harnessing the literature pertaining to the Framing Theory, the silence on Bateson can be justified for several reasons. Such matters as his own interdisciplinary identity, lack of middle range theory contributions and spatiotemporal context of ″effect being the primary concern″will profitably be taken on board by this paper. To be specific, firstly, as an interdisciplinary scholar, Bateson often concerned himself with borderline topics. Besides, Bateson inspired scholars to ask various types of questions about the Framing Theory, although his work provided an incomplete, albeit informative, picture about the middle range theory. This literature still has a long way to go. The third point to note is the fact that mass-media academic communities with deep-seated respect for effect have not been very satisfied with his explanation on account of Bateson' single-minded focus on interpersonal communication. As for the silence related to″non-media effect framework,″ ″non-mass media framework″ and ″cultural framework,″ such dismal state might largely because of the present academic atmosphere that under scores the importance of effect and overstates the middle range theory. Scholars are obsessed with empirical studies which have overshadowed the equally important theoretical issues. Few of them see or even care about cultural and non-media communication (non-media communication in particular) , thus inevitably lose some important information that merits special attention. As a result, both economists and psychologists have made abundant achievements by expanding upon the groundwork laid in the Framing Theory under the respective rubrics of″Prospect Theory″and″Priming Effect,″ but when it comes to the communication field, the research picture looks rather bleak given the woeful dearth of relevant literature. To provide new communication-related material of the Framing theory, the paper believes the way forward might be the resort to constructivism approaches that underlie general human communication researches. In this vein, this paper, without losing track of the unresisted allure of real situations and local cultures to scholars, proposes the embedment of framework into culture and the substitution of three-dimensional research arena in place of the ″media-audience″binary linear model. At the macroscopic level, the paper looks at the issue in the light of cultural norms and tries to be more sensitive, attentive and responsive to the differences among jurisdictions within various spatio temporal contexts. At the mesoscopic level, the paper, using ″field″ as the basic unit, proceeds to depict, exploit and analyze the changing landscape on the part of both distinct frames and silent frames within the same spatiotemporal context. At the microscopic level, this paper ventures across the border to avail itself of the insights from neuroscience and media psychology in an effort to elucidate the resonance and the follow-up diffusion between the exterior framing and the cognitive patterns of human brains.