{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03094606542882405, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014146772767462422, 'mean_word_length': 5.288888888888889, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Tectonic geomorphology: recent studies of faulting and tectonic landforms

The excitement, indeed the essence, of geomorphology is in explaining why the earth surface is the way it is, at every scale. Tectonic geomorphology encapsulates this excitement, seeking, for example, the reason for the presence, shape and arrangement of the Himalaya, the explanation of why faults are seldom found on the tops of mountain ranges and why their scarps have particular profiles. Not surprisingly, tectonic geomorphology, with its breadth, multidisciplinary nature and dynamism (to excuse the pun), is not included in the stinging commentary by Baker and Twidale ( 1991 ) on the dullness of modem geomorphology. Two recent texts (Bridges, 1990; Summerfield, 1991 a) attempt to capture the importance of global and regional tectonics on landscape development. Summerfield captures some of the excitement of why landscapes look like they do but, as Church ( 1991 ) notes, there is a preoccupation with definitions and a lack of unifying thread. Nevertheless, the sections on approaches to geomorphology, on rates of uplift and denudation, long-