I think that both these questions depend on the meaning of the word "reify".
I guess you understand "reify" to mean "say that something is real when it isn't" -- and so you dislike nidanas being described as reifications (but maybe you'd disagree with putting words into your mouth like that).
IMO "to reify" means to perceive an activity or verb as an object or noun -- e.g. from "running" or "to run", you derive "a runner". I may be wrong but I think I read once that Chinese doesn't do this, i.e. that its grammar/syntax doesn't split words into nouns and verbs and it would use the same word in a sentence for "running" and/or "runner" (and so it's difficult to translate Chinese, because to produce grammatical English from it you need to add reifications, i.e. subject/verb distinctions).
Reification also happens not only with verbs but with adjectives -- e.g. from "angry", where "angry" is an adjective, you derive the noun "anger". These tend to be so-called abstract nouns.
Even more generally I think that reification can be used to represent the notion that because a word exists the corresponding thing exists -- e.g. "god", but see also "unicorn". That does have some parallels, although more subtle, in Buddhist doctrine: see e.g. descriptions of "a self" or "a chariot".
Is this view or idea taught in the Pali Suttas?
I doubt it -- not in these words, anyway! I don't think that the suttas are very interested in teaching grammar. They are kind of into ontology, but ... I'm guessing that if you're looking for scriptures that describe a process that should be translated as "reification", I'd guess you may be more likely to find it in later scriptures that describe sunyata.
Experience (Vijnana) which is really nothing but reification of Recognition (or Interpretation)
I don't know if that's an accurate quote or your paraphrase. It sounds like it's meant to be a strawman i.e. easy to knock down.
Firstly because it's saying that something is "really" something, which begs this question for a start.
Second because it's saying "nothing but" whereas if only because of papanca I think it's always possible to produce distinctions (in the perceived meanings of words)
Thirdly because ("in real life") recognition and experience are complicated processes -- which are here described or defined using single words (i.e. "recognition" and "experience"). You seem to be assuming that the words exactly match the "reality" (by the way, note that "reality" is etymologically similar to "reification" i.e. based on the same root). Then you're asking whether the relationship between the words ("experience" is a "reification" of "recognition") is an exact match ("is really nothing but") the relationship in reality. And as I said I think the answer depends on the definitions of the words or your understanding of the meaning of the words -- i.e. "what does reification mean in this context?"
Anyway, I suppose it's true that "reification" isn't a view taught in the suttas. FWIW the only place I find the word on Access to insight is in the definition of the word papanca
Complication, proliferation, objectification. The tendency of the mind to proliferate issues from the sense of "self." This term can also be translated as self-reflexive thinking, reification, falsification, distortion, elaboration, or exaggeration. In the discourses, it is frequently used in analyses of the psychology of conflict. [MORE]
I'm not sure it's safe to assume, though, that whatever you were quoting was intending to convey this meaning of "reification" -- I suppose one should read the quote in its larger context to try for an understanding of what message they were trying to convey.
Perhaps (I only guess, since you didn't reference the quote) in this context "reification" was supposed to point to a difference between what's dynamic (current, ever-changing) versus static (stored memories or snapshots, and/or assigning specific "solid" words or nouns to describe the dynamic).
FWIW I think that suttas often suggest we identify things as adjectives rather than as nouns -- e.g. to categorise things as "skilful or not-skillful", or as "not mine", etc. -- though of course it also uses a lot of nouns (including many abstract nouns) like "sensuality" or "dispassion" and so on.